Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
* Leigh Dodds | | I'm wondering whether AFs is a solution aimed at streamlining the | creation of vertical XML vocabularies (one doesn't necessarily have | to, you define an architectural DTD for everyones existing formats), | rather than a means to facilitate working with multiple | vocabularies. Transforms seems a better approach in that use case. I would rather say horizontal vocabularies, I think. One place where XML really does need something like AFs is in XLink. People don't like having to give their linking elements particular names, and yet they would like to have the benefit of standardized linking semantics. AFs provide a way to do this (this is how HyTime works) that is simple and easy to use. A benefit of AFs is that they can be really simple to use in software. David Megginson made a SAX filter for AFs in XML, and using that making the XLink-relevant parts of input documents available to an XLink processor would be trivial, even if other processing were happening at the same time. (BTW, easily the best place to get an explanation of AFs is in David Megginsons 'Structuring XML Documents', which is really about writing DTDs.) -- Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net > ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
|
