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

Re: Architectural Forms (was Re: XHTML 2.0 and the

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Architectural Forms (was Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death)
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 07:26:04 +0000
• In-reply-to: <E17hG11-0000Vz-00@m...>
• References: <simonstl@s...> of "Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:28:32 EDT." <r01050300-1015-03FE3933ADEF11D69D4E0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]> <E17hG11-0000Vz-00@m...>

Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...> wrote:

| 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. 

And leave it at just that, I take it?

| 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.

This is qualitatively no different than an exchange like: "Why <FRAME>s?"
"Because they're there".

One would think that on a developer list, there would be a greater than
usual willingness to consider *developing* alternatives, rather than
merely finding satisfaction on the basis of what already exists, thanks to
having caught the fancy of developers who came before.

It really seems that Afs do *not* have to be rediscovered.  They have to
be reinvented.  Leading edge and all that.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Architectural Forms (was Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death)
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • Re: Architectural Forms (was Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death)
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Architectural Forms (was Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Architectural Forms (was Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death)
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednature of DOM
• Next by Date: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented natureof DOM
• Previous by thread: Re: Architectural Forms (was Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death)
• Next by thread: Re: Architectural Forms (was Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread