• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Architectural Forms revival?
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 21:01:20 +0000
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B889@HQ5>
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B889@HQ5>

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> wrote:
| From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@f...]
| 
|> One thing, though:  if this sort of thing happens, can we *please* not 
|> call it "architectural forms". 

| Or perhaps we could call them that and honor those who came before. 

Perhaps, but Uche has a point.  SGML terminology is undoubtedly orotund.
I personally prefer "archetype" to "architectural form", but I'm not good
at pizazzy names either.  (Even "archetype" is a bit misleading about the
essential point of the syntactic technique.  We need a short snappy name
for what mathematicians might call a homomorphism.)

| More respect and less unattributed rip off would be a nice precedent, 
| and [are] seriously overdue on the web.  Otherwise, we are just a bunch 
| of tomb robbers.

The web is a triumph of lowtech muddlefutz adhackery.  Sustaining the
pretensions of backyard garage mechanics is essential to its popularity.

• References:
  • RE: Architectural Forms revival?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML indexing/search engine
• Next by Date: Re: XML indexing/search engine
• Previous by thread: RE: Architectural Forms revival?
• Next by thread: Re: Architectural Forms revival?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread