Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
* Tim Bray | | In my recollection, the main objection was that the AF syntax for | namespacing on attributes was seen as really unattractive. * Lars Marius Garshol | | And, truth be told, it *is* really unattractive. * Steven R. Newcomb | | So AFs were rejected by the W3C on esthetic grounds. I don't know. | To this day, nobody has explained what's so unattractive about the | AF paradigm, or the precise nature of the esthetics that found the | AF solution "ugly". The way schema information is piggy-backed into the existing schema language in a way that makes it appear in the instance data rather than in the schema itself is ugly to me. Also very ugly is the way many attribute values end up being structured in ways that should rather be structured with markup. Apart from that I am fairly happy with AFs, though I think that to work in XML they would have to be upgraded to work with namespaces. -- Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net > ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format