> That's a bit of a strawman, IMHO. It may have been the intent of
the WG to
> produce OO in XML
I've never confused XML Schema complex types with objects (although I may
have had past cranial emissions of that nature). The above statement does
not exhibit such confusion, though: it only speculates on the thought
processes of the WG, which ht has been kind enough to clarify. I don't see
that his statements confuse objects with data, either, BTW.
However, I have seen complex types mapped to objects. There are similarities
in their mechanisms for inheritance. Whether such similarities are enough
to justify attempts at data binding is subjective, although I sense a tidal
shift away from such efforts. But you know how tides are...
