[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- To: xml-dev <xml-dev@xml.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:39:17 -0800
At 06:05 PM 2/25/00 +1100, Arjun Ray wrote:
>>The W3C is gung-ho on namespaces, and an
>> integral part of the boosterism surrounding this bogosity is the
>> obligatory potshot at AFs.
OK, since Arjun says a potshot at AFs is "obligatory", I guess I'll have to
take one :) Actually, AFs do a totally different thing than AFs do; a much
larger and more ambitious thing. I'm pretty sure that what AFs do is a
superset of what namespaces do. David Megginson has proved conclusively that
using namespaces doesn't get in the way of using AFs.
The only reason why the AF framework wasn't used to do the job of namespaces
(and yes, we thought about it a lot) is that the syntax for AF-ing attributes
is ugly and complicated. The syntax for namespaces is uniform for attributes
and elements, and much simpler. Not simpler because of better design, just
simpler because it's trying to solve a much smaller problem.
Or maybe it's just that all us evil monopolists around the table couldn't
stand the thought of the oppressed masses, empowered by the magic of AFs,
smashing down our alabaster castles and breaking through to freedom. I
think there was a memo on this subject from The Nine or Ten Guys Who
Secretly Run Everything (http://www.zark.com/pages2/az50.html)
Whatever. -Tim
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
***************************************************************************
|
