W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Extending "choice" model group in a xsd schema

From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 22:14:32 +0530
Message-ID: <7870f82e1001080844p288cf758v82f187e87fe5a548@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Jaikiran Pai <jai_forums2005@yahoo.co.in>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:
> The odd thing though is that the OO languages I'm familiar with treat the
> fields/methods on a class as a set rather than a sequence, and a subclass
> can add members to this set; so they don't have any kind of user-visible
> constraint like the one in XSD that says the additions have to be at the end
> of the sequence.

I'm not sure, if comparing unordered fields/methods of a OO class to
say a XSD sequence, is the right thing to do. My experience with OO
languages, convinces me that unordered fields/methods is the right
design for OO languages. Giving order to fields/methods in an OO
program doesn't look right to me (because when the object's consumer
invokes an object's methods, order of methods or says fields, is not
significant -- or to say, is not required from a OO system).

Whereas, ordering (say the element order) is an important requirement
in XML documents.


-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi
Received on Friday, 8 January 2010 16:52:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:15:16 GMT