Lists Home |
Date Index |
><sf>If I encapsulate an element's content by switching during
>an interface, that abstracts away - say - the structure
>inside, then it will
>be easier to produce applications, that are less likely to
>break down. Does
>anybody see a chance with today's tools?</sf>
That's what I was suggesting. However, I don't see how this can be achieved
without adding type information (AKA PSVI) to XML elements, and have a
typing system that supports extensibility. Looks like we're reinventing OOP
there, with XML as a data serialisation format.
Lots of people will howl against this, I guess, because it would mean that
XML as an independant technology did not met its promises. I did not make
any promise (crossing my fingers, here), personally, so I don't mind.
Another bunch of people would not be happy to see OOP concepts invade XML
and shout that THE ENTIRE WORLD IS NOT OOP. That's right. But the entire
world is not extensible. OOP was conceived to allow people to build better,
extensible systems, after all, so no wonder we have to look at OOP when
extensibility is an issue.