• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@g...>
• Date: 31 Jan 2002 18:31:05 +0100
• In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20020131083303.02814c60@p...>
• References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020131083303.02814c60@p...>

* Tim Bray
| 
| In my recollection, the main objection was that the AF syntax for
| namespacing on attributes was seen as really unattractive.  

And, truth be told, it *is* really unattractive. In fact, it's both
the least attractive and least important aspect of AFs. If AFs were to
be adopted by the W3C the syntax ought to be changed.

| If we had wanted to do namespaces on just elements, not attributes,
| I'm pretty sure we would have ended up with AFs or equivalent.

This I don't follow. How would you have gotten the processing
semantics and resulting naming freedom by taking that approach?

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@c...>
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• References:
  • RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: "Query by example" (was Re: misprocessing namespaces)
• Next by Date: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Previous by thread: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread