[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- To: David Megginson <david@megginson.com>, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:56:48 -0500
David Megginson wrote:
>
>
> Daniel Barclay writes:
>
> > > Architectural Forms would be ...
> >
> > Is there any clear, simple explanation of what Architectural Forms
> > are out there? (Whatever I've encountered so far hasn't been clear
> > enough to click.)
>
> If you have to ask, you're not ready to know yet.
>
> Seriously, over two years ago, I put an architectural-form proposal
> together for XML and called it "XAF". The response was un-deafening,
> and I think that the ISO people came up with a slightly different
> syntax in the end, ...
Two years ago I thought that XML was simple and SGML was complex. In the
last 2 years XML (and its stable of technologies) has gotten alot more
complex and in retrospect things like (X)AF are looking alot more simple, go
figure.
Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
http://www.openhealth.org
|
