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

RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms

• To: 'Lars Marius Garshol' <larsga@g...>, xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:57:50 -0600

As Arthur tells his knights in the Holy Grail, 
"Camelot!  Let's not go there.  It's a silly place." 
On some days, that is the W3C:  a bit too impressed 
with its perception of its imprimatur.  

As pointed out, AFs were a way to get rid of the 
need to name pieces of the inlined controls and 
share the names among applications.  Remember, 
SGML at the time was struggling with the mono-name 
space aspect of DTDs and the centralization politics 
that makes inevitable.  Before there was an Evil 
Empire, there were competing government factions, 
competing industry committees and so on.  Everyone 
was trying to write The Final DTD and 28001 was the 
result.

The W3C also has to give up superstitions.  On the 
other hand, AFs were discussed very seriously and 
I'm still not sure what the killer objections were. 
It may be that AFs are not THE solution, but a solution 
that like so many others (relax, xml schemas, dtds, 
xslt) and so on, once understood and implemented, 
have a niche in which they thrive.  If there are 
overlaps in functionality with other specifications, 
so what?  That is the case already with some of 
the bloomin' flowers out there.  Keep XML 1.0 
stable and don't require namespaces in the core, 
and this all works.  If XML 2.0 is a stricter 
specification, it may also become a dodo.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Lars Marius Garshol [mailto:larsga@g...]

So the W3C family of specifications does need something *like* AFs, if
not necessarily AFs as they are known from ISO 10744. In fact, I think
the specification mechanism from ISO 10744 should be abandoned. AFs
are, at heart, a subtyping mechanism for element/attribute types with
attached processing semantics. It may well be that the politically and
technically most feasible solution is to adapt the idea of AFs in the
form of an extension to the subtyping mechanism in XML Schema.

Of course, as long as many W3C people involuntarily make the sign of
the cross whenever they hear the term 'architectural forms' chances
are not very good.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: "Leigh Dodds" <ldodds@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Namespaces in XML and schemas
• Next by Date: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Previous by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by thread: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread