RE: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)

[Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>]

> > Right, but if you view attributes at "attributes of a type", and
> > content as "attributes of a type" (syntactic sugar), we get into
> > a funky world where one asks why you can't specify the ordering
> > of attributes as you can content. This is kind of where the
> > SML folk were coming from.
>
> The question of "order" is separate from that of a "type".  In relational
> databases, each returned row can be seen as an instance of a type (a la C.
> J. Date), but the components of that type form a set, not a list.

I think ordering is just one more type constraint. I'm using
a non-standard definition of "type" though... where type is proven
by a set of assertions... kind of like

  Is it red? Yes.
  Does it have seeds? Yes.
  Is it sweet? Yes.
  Is it crispy when bitten into? Yes.

  ... I declare this to be an apple!