Re: There Are No Metadocuments

Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
  
> 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.

While I agree with this, I say we cannot even consider 
the use of the terms unless we are able to relate these 
"current buzzwords" to the programming community to whom they are 
not just buzzwords.  If an IDL is required, that is what 
you design.  Tell me how a DTD can provide an IDL.
That's the point I'm fuzzy on here.

But fairy dust or no, it has advantages.

Once you make objects out of it, interoperability 
quits being an impossible goal.  If we are too proud 
to understand that, we are also too dumb.  Separation 
of data and behavior are fine in theory, but in 
implementation that is not the way things are done.
Unless we give them the architecture in code, 
we haven't given them what they need.

Jeez... I think this is a no-brainer.
 
Java/XML - a Source Reference.  Proves 
we can do what we say we can do.  Gives a 
university student a base of code.  Free.
Best cross-platform.  Easiest implementation.
AWT library.  Lots of kids learning it.

What's the downside?

Yeah, Sun owns Java.  So what?  Everyone is building 
the VM support in their operating systems.  Looks 
like a pretty big first fielding.  Also, the network 
engines are there.  Quick to the Web.

len

Received on Monday, 10 February 1997 19:49:12 UTC