[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Architectural Forms and XAF

• From: "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@t...>
• To: xml-dev@x...
• Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 12:52:48 -0600

[Tim Bray:]

> OK, since Arjun says a potshot at AFs is "obligatory", I guess I'll
> have to take one :) Actually, AFs do a totally different thing than
> AFs do; a much larger and more ambitious thing.  I'm pretty sure
> that what AFs do is a superset of what namespaces do.  David
> Megginson has proved conclusively that using namespaces doesn't get
> in the way of using AFs.

Namespaces create confusion by seeming, to the naive, to accomplish
things that only architectural forms (AFs) actually accomplish.
Namespaces occupy scarce public mindspace with a "solution" that is
still being promoted as solving problems that it does not, in fact,
solve.  So, it's only *in reality* that XML Namespaces get in the way
of using AFs.

Ignorant claims made for XML Namespaces are creating messes.  When the
cleanup bill comes due, it will not add to the credibility of XML.

> The only reason why the AF framework wasn't used to do the job of
> namespaces (and yes, we thought about it a lot) is that the syntax
> for AF-ing attributes is ugly and complicated.

Jeez, Tim, you're just about to say that AFs solve problems that XML
Namespaces don't solve, but first you're complaining that AFs have a
more complicated syntax.  Why are we supposed to believe that this
extra complexity is bad or unwarranted?  As for the syntax of AFs
being "ugly", what you seem to be saying is that AFs were rejected on
account of the esthetics of the ISO syntax for expressing them.  Do
you really mean that?  Are your esthetic sensibilities so infallible
that they should act as guiding design principles for the information
economy of the entire planet?  And even if that were true, why can't a
syntax guru like you design a prettier syntax that offers the same set
of vital functionalities?

> The syntax for namespaces is uniform for attributes and elements,
> and much simpler.  Not simpler because of better design, just
> simpler because it's trying to solve a much smaller problem.

> Or maybe it's just that all us evil monopolists around the table
> couldn't stand the thought of the oppressed masses, empowered by the
> magic of AFs, smashing down our alabaster castles and breaking
> through to freedom.  I think there was a memo on this subject from
> The Nine or Ten Guys Who Secretly Run Everything
> (http://www.zark.com/pages2/az50.html)

Thanks for this potshot, Tim.  It honors my efforts to sensitize our
readers to the question of who wins and who loses whenever a decision
is made to adopt (or not to adopt) the architectural forms paradigm.

-Steve

--
Steven R. Newcomb, President, TechnoTeacher, Inc.
srn@t...  http://www.techno.com  ftp.techno.com

voice: +1 972 517 7954
fax    +1 972 517 4571

Suite 211
7101 Chase Oaks Boulevard 
Plano, Texas 75025 USA

***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
***************************************************************************

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Architectural Forms and XAF
    • From: "Wang,David" <dwang@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Architectural Forms and XAF
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: A certain difficulty
• Next by Date: RE: XML Schemas: lost "open content models"?
• Previous by thread: Re: Architectural Forms and XAF
• Next by thread: Re: Architectural Forms and XAF
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread