[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
We had OpenDoc for that. And Corba. And COM.
And then there were Groves. And RDF. and...
An object model often reflects more compromises than you can shake a stick at,
and risks being either so ambiguous or so context-specific as to be useless.
Gustaf Liljegren wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Maybe 5 years to late, but I never really understood the argument about why
> a standardized syntax is better than a standardized object model. It sounds
> right, but I can't explain why.
>
> Imagine XML like a standardized object model of various node types, with no
> rules whatsoever about the serialization format. Why would such a standard
> have less chance to survive?
>
> Also, imagine XML like a standardized object model PLUS a standardized
> syntax. Why would such a standard have less chance to survive?
>
> Gustaf
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
|
