- From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 22:14:32 +0530
- 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 UTC