Re: [xml-dev] An inquiry into the nature of XML and how it orients ourpe

[Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@Sun.COM>]

On 2009-11-20, at 10:56 PM, rjelliffe@allette.com.au wrote:

> The use of classes and subclasses is characteristic but not definitive of
> an object-oriented system. An object-oriented system is merely one where
> all the characteristics of a thing (typically methods and fields) are
> bundled, and where most or all things are objects.

Ever since Day 0, I've been uncomfortable with the notion that there's anything O-O about XML.  It seems to me at a pretty deep level that O-O is about hiding and encapsulation; an object is a thing that can do some things on demand, don't bother your pretty little head about how it's done.  

It seems to me like XML is oriented exactly 180° in the opposite direction: Here's the data, here are some labels for the data, here are some ordering and containment relationships, you're free to do whatever you want with it.  That's a good thing and (I've always the big win) - the provider doesn't constrain what the receiver does.  -Tim