OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Co-operating with Architectural Forms

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Or the entire framework has a root called "object". 
Smalltalk, yes.  Elegant.

Urrmm... calling the GI a type has descriptive 
usefulness, but using it as a type is a higher 
level processing implication.  Isn't that precisely 
why RELAX made validation its focus? 
Isn't that why people want a pipelined architecture?
Nothing Steve claims changes the way Jonathan wants 
to *use* XML.  Both can be right but Steve is arguing 
that Jonathan's use is one of many possible as long 
as namespaces don't lock the GI to a *type*.  Isn't 
that why the spec stayed silent on any *use* past 

Parts and assemblies:  it's in the way that you use it.


-----Original Message-----
From: Sean McGrath [mailto:sean.mcgrath@propylon.com]

[Jonathan Borden]

>What is the myth? "isa" links have been used forever. A "name" is a
>character string, right, what is open to interpretation? But please tell me
>about this "thing" that is different from its "name". I suspect that if you
>can describe it with enough precision that the answer to these issues will
>become apparent. For example do you wish to describe each and every element
>that exists in the entire universe as a distinct "it" that "has-a" set of
>properties. That would be tedious.

And phenomenological to boot.

Mind game: Imaging a UML tool where all classes are instances of a single
uber-class with an attribute called "type".


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS