[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]

  • To: 'Uche Ogbuji' <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • Subject: RE: Architectural Forms (was Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death)
  • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:07:49 -0500
  • Cc: xml-dev@l...

That isn't exactly a compelling argument for progress. 
Or maybe there won't be progress until something in 
the toolkit can't do the job, or something in the 
job needs a new feature.

Maybe being an elderly type, I've sat through enough 
evolution of the web and the systems that predate it
to know that everything old becomes new again in 
someone else's garage.   We had to use nails and 
hammers to build ships until someone worked out 
that wrapping a surface around a nail worked out 
to be a leverageable nail known thereafter as a 
screw.  Now not only wood, but other materials 
could be used to build securely given a screwdriver.

Sigh.. the next generation of global hypermedia will 
have to evolve in a different pond.  Tautologies 
are the dominant lifeforms in this one.

len

From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@f...]

I just want to point out that I like AFs.  I like the ideas behind them, and I 
appreciate the arguments that have been made that they are a more general 
system than namespaces.  My point is that this is all abstract AFAIC, because 
I don't use them.  None of my tools do, and I haven't got around to using 
anything that does.  I do use namespaces all the time, though, and usually 
with little incident, so I am naturally fine with a solution based on NS.


Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member