[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: There Are No Metadocuments



In message <libSDtMail.9702101400.10360.bsmith@providence/providence> Bill Smith writes:
[...]
> 
> If we are going to go down this path, let's not call this "ball of stuff" 
> a document. An object (WebObject) might be a better moniker since we should 
                         ^^^^^^^^^
I think this is an excellent term and it certainly describes how I use XML
documents.  I don't know enough about objects to know whether we are taking
too simple view, as we have state and inheritance to consider.  

> include behavior as well as appearance in the ball.
> 
> My personal preference would be to include references to behavior (code) 
> and appearance (style sheets). Without that separation reuse is difficult 
> and object management is seriously impaired.

I think this is a very useful distinction, which will also help when it comes
to considering style sheets.

If the term WebObject is acceptable for some or all XML documents then it
is a very useful way of reaching out to the wider community.  'Objects' and
'CORBA' are the current buzzwords although a lot of people naively think
that 'CORBA' will solve their problems.  It won't - they have to build
IDLs (Interface Definition Language) on top of it.  Again I may be 
simplistic, but for my problems I see DTDs as providing a large part of 
an IDL, so that by using XML you are making life much easier for object
interoperability.

	P.

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust, (domestic net connection)
Virtual School of Molecular Sciences, Nottingham University, UK
http://www.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk/~pazpmr/


Follow-Ups: