Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Re: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: There
 Regards my response to Rick, it appears that you have concerns which, when I sort away the technical details, are identical to the ones expressed by various XML-Dev list members: how to express semantics for XML documents. You go a bit further and require multiple semantics and that the instance should be able to tell the system which semantics it can be used with. I'm not convinced this is a struggle with large corporations, or that we have to keep that issue up front. Life is doing that anyway and I can't think of a person here that doesn't express that worry here from time to time except possibly Clark. I think it is the Pogo thing and the people who have to be convinced are well-represented here. If the developers are sold on the idea, it usually sells elsewhere. XML was sellable because it was easy to explain and came with a built in "up the noses of our ugly parents" rhetoric. If we can achieve the first without the latter, the debates will at least be quieter. What is most important is to keep the focus on the layering aspects, single contact as you say, and to make sure the requirements are adequate to produce a system that has at least a five year life cycle. It seems to me that you should be attending the ISO committee that James is chairing with Rick, Ken etc. Even if AFs aren't the final solution (if there ever is such a thing), the lessons learned, the facts about the implementations you have worked with, all seem relevant to that effort. And having served with you in at least one or two short sword battles, I know that if the knives come out, you are more than capable. ;-) But if the last month of cross-topical threads here are indicative, the issue is very much on all of our minds and agendas. len -----Original Message----- From: Steven R. Newcomb [mailto:srn@c...] "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> writes: > Steve, are they? Would archforms work with RNG? Exactly what I'm wondering, Len. I think so, but I'm not comfortable enough with RNG yet to commit myself on this question. I like RNG a whole lot, though. And, the idea of making a clean separation (or, rather, a single point of contact) between semantic and syntactic validation is very consistent with the goal of modularity -- the same goal that is at the heart of the architectural forms paradigm. Over the last few years, I've talked about AFs with Makoto Murata from time to time, so I know he's well aware of the issues. As for James Clark, he practically wrote the book on architectural forms, although he professes no great love for them now. So I have high hopes that the requirements that I keep bringing up, year after year, will someday be addressed by people who are competent to address them. I think it would be higher on their agenda if more people indicated to them that these are serious requirements with serious economic consequences. Right now, it's still unusual for someone to bring up the possibility that a single document could be useful in multiple processing contexts. (And when someone does this, typically someone else says, "You mean CONCUR?", whereupon everyone present makes a rude noise. The CONCUR feature of SGML was an earlier attempt to address some of the same requirements.) 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
