- Dave
james anderson wrote:
>
> David Brownell wrote:
> >
> > Graham Moore wrote:
> > >
> > > Eliot wrote
> > >
> > > > The last two [java class for elements / swing classes] are no different
> > > > from requiring a style sheet--someone still has to provide
> > > > a per-document or document type definition of what the styling should
> > > > be
> > >
> > > The functional binding / class => element could be done as a default. Look
> > > in the location where the document was acquired from using the element name
> > > as the class name. It would just work, with no additional configuration
> > > files. If no class exists then the node is just a node.
> >
> > That doesn't seem sufficient to me. What's the package name?
>
> a mapping from the namespace name. (java packages may require an intermediate)
Assumes there's a namespace name.
> > What about classes that should represent multiple element types?
>
> specialize the class appropriately
Assumes creating a class is zero cost, and doesn't accomodate open
ended sets of element types.
> > What about the different semantics associated with different namespaces?
>
> that's what packages are for.
Assumes folk don't have common semantics in different namepaces.
> > Suppose you want the element and class names to be different, perhaps because
> > you and your users work with different natural languages?
>
> support an architectural attribute, with appropriate defaults in the
> attribute definitions.
Assumes the folk defining the mappings are the ones defining the
attributes.