RE: [xml-dev] constructive (was RE: [xml-dev] Markup perspective not code)

["Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>]

I disagree with you and completely agree with Simon on this regard. 
 
Platform and implementation specific technology like how to map XML to programming language objects is the last thing that needs to go through the design-by-commitee/lowest-common denominator process that has characterized the W3C's efforts in coming up with programming language related standards. 
 
This is exactly the problem with the DOM which you rail against. One standard API for all languages regardless of whether staticlly or dynamically typed, weakly or strongly typed, garbage collected or not is bound to be insufficient many cases. Add the fact that this API will have to ignore programming idioms, design patterns and naming conventions in most of its target languages since it will just pick one means that using it will be counter-intuitive from using other APIs in these target languages. 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Didier PH Martin [mailto:martind@netfolder.com] 
	Sent: Sun 8/4/2002 8:59 AM 
	To: Dare Obasanjo; 'Simon St.Laurent'; xml-dev@lists.xml.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: [xml-dev] constructive (was RE: [xml-dev] Markup perspective not code)
	
	

	Hi Dare,
	
	Dare said:
	Converting XML to an object hierarchy? Isn't this what Castor does for
	Java objects and .NET XML Serialization does for CLR objects? There was
	a recent article on XML.com that provides can act an introduction to XML
	data binding if you are unaware of this technology
	
	Didier replies:
	Precisely, yes I am aware of these technologies. My concern is more that
	there is no support from W3C for these technologies. Moreover, this
	needs to be advocated to developers in order that they know there exist
	an alternative to RPCs that does not require them to back to archaic
	tools. The XML.com article was a good move toward that goal.
	
	Cheers
	Didier PH Martin