• To: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <clbullar@i...>,"xml-dev" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: "Leigh Dodds" <ldodds@i...>
• Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:01:37 -0000
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306DF635A@HQ5>

> -----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.

Cheers,

L.

• References:
  • RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by Date: life support for DTDs? was RE: misprocessing namespaces)
• Previous by thread: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by thread: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread