Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Agree and appreciated. We got into this almost as a historical review but may be discovering the technology of AFs has a place beside the others and what you suggest is exactly what we should come out of this with: a map. I'm not quite sure we have all the pieces of the puzzle yet. As I said, if sharing behavioral semantics is a goal, none of these solutions seem more than just a means to point to documents that describe semantics. The LowlyNotation is the only one that actually references an executable. len -----Original Message----- From: Leigh Dodds [mailto:ldodds@i...] > -----Original Message----- > From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...] > Sent: 31 January 2002 14:58 > To: 'Lars Marius Garshol'; xml-dev > Subject: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms [...] > It may be that AFs are not THE solution, but a solution > that like so many others (relax, xml schemas, dtds, > xslt) and so on, once understood and implemented, > have a niche in which they thrive. If there are > overlaps in functionality with other specifications, > so what? True, but it's useful to find where the overlaps are, and the environments where each solution is better. I'll try to summarise the points made in this thread and circulate it back through the list.
|
