xml-dev - Re: Schema concepts

["Bill la Forge" <b.laforge@jxml.com>]

> And then there is the question of the distinction between "class" and
> "type".  This is very important to some people, and unimportant to others.

This is close to something I've been pondering. And yes, this topic is
close to my biases, so you probably can't take everything I say at
face value. (Not that anyone would. :-)

In OOP, specialized classes derive from a common class. Often, the
common class has some capability and the derived classes deal with
a particular use.

But if you generate classes from schema (((and lets ignore type for a
moment))), then the classes are particular to a use. And inheritance
is used to attach methods (capability). So things seem to be upside down.

Now, lets say we have XML type tied to a class, somehow, and we
have attached our methods by some means. Now an element can
reflect a use of that capability. In fact, by defining fixed values in the
schema, we can configure the common capability for a particular
usage without having to create any additional code. This feels like we've
got things in the right order.

Frankly, if we aren't talking about implementation, I suspect type has
no meaning. If type is more than syntatic sugar, then it seems that it
must be a way of addressing some underlying semantic that is common
to various elements, where the elements reflect usage.

Bill


***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
***************************************************************************