I agree that most W3C specs are horribly written, but your comment that Schema doesn't fit the needs of OOP is just stupid. First of all, XML is not Object-Oriented, so there is no need for an XML validation language (i.e. Schema) to include built-in OO capabilities. On the other hand, XML could be used to implement an Object-Oriented language, and I am 100% sure that you could write a Schema to validate this language.
Slashdot Mirror
The cheap "Intel" hardware is found at AMD. Check out the latest eMachines notebooks. They are decent machines for around $1300-$1400.
I'm not sure which is worse: your teaching blatantly lying to you or you believing him/her.
Free Shoes from Nike
I'm not sure which is worse: your teaching blatantly lying to you or you believing him/her.
Free Shoes from Nike
I call bullsh*t. There's a difference between not knowing that the car is stolen and not knowing that it is illegal to be in a stolen car.
I know it was more than 12 words, but try reading the whole post before replying.
I agree that most W3C specs are horribly written, but your comment that Schema doesn't fit the needs of OOP is just stupid. First of all, XML is not Object-Oriented, so there is no need for an XML validation language (i.e. Schema) to include built-in OO capabilities. On the other hand, XML could be used to implement an Object-Oriented language, and I am 100% sure that you could write a Schema to validate this language.
...on the foolingest day of your life with an electrified fooling machine!