[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: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 03:06:05 +0000
• In-reply-to: <E17j9sL-0001nN-00@m...>
• References: <aray@n...> of "Wed, 21 Aug 2002 07:26:04 -0000." <osf6mu45tp3jugedkmhm5cmfjkfhohpt9p@4...> <E17j9sL-0001nN-00@m...>

Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...> wrote:
| [Arjun Ray:]

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

Actually, a closer analogy in that vein would be "Why anything besides the
Model T"?

| More rot.  Do you design your own programming languages just because none 
| of the ones you've used are thoretically perfect?

Straw man.  Perfection is not at issue.
 
| It is all a matter of economics. 

Indeed.  May I recommend to you Frederic Bastiat's classic essay:

 http://www.freedomsnest.com/bastiat.html

especially the parable of the broken window.  Mindspace is finite.

| The fact that developers here have not, on the whole, clamored to develop 
| AFs for XML probably says a good deal about the fact that namespaces are 
| not as big a problem as you like to make them out to be.

For one thing, AFs were explained to them.  For another, they were told to
run with namespaces.  So they did.  W3C imprimatur was not on a technical
document, but on a political one. 
 
| Any anyway, so why don't *you* lead the way and develop something so 
| superior that we'll have no chaoice but to drop everything and use it?

I have no assurance that the mainstream finds interesting the problems I
find interesting.  I build my own tools when I need them.  I may publish
them some day.  -shrug-.

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

• References:
  • Re: Architectural Forms (was Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death)
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: Architectural Forms (was Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death)
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: patterns vs. identifiers
• Next by Date: Re: Architectural Forms revival?
• 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