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

Re: Architectural Forms and XAF

• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:39:17 -0800

At 06:05 PM 2/25/00 +1100, Arjun Ray wrote:
>>The W3C is gung-ho on namespaces, and an
>> integral part of the boosterism surrounding this bogosity is the
>> obligatory potshot at AFs.

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.

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.  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)

Whatever. -Tim

***************************************************************************
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: "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@t...>
  • Re: Architectural Forms and XAF
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@q...>
  • Re: Architectural Forms and XAF
    • From: Len Bullard <cbullard@h...>
  • Re: Architectural Forms and XAF
    • From: Ed Nixon <ed.nixon@L...>

• Prev by Date: Re: In praise of SVG
• Next by Date: Promoting RDF (was RE: A certain difficulty)
• Previous by thread: Re: Architectural Forms and XAF
• Next by thread: Re: Architectural Forms and XAF
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread