[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms

• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@g...>
• Date: 03 Feb 2002 22:46:29 +0100
• In-reply-to: <m37kpym99c.fsf@d...>
• References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020131083303.02814c60@p...> <m38zaetokm.fsf@l...> <m37kpym99c.fsf@d...>

* 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 >

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: "Smart ASCII" -> XML for authoring?
• Next by Date: Re: "Smart ASCII" -> XML for authoring?
• Previous by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread