Re: [xml-dev] AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: [xml-dev] There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven R. Newcomb" <>
To: "Nicolas Lehuen" <>
Cc: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <>; "'Jeff Lowery'"
<>; <>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: [xml-dev]
There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)


> > Disclaimer : I just read David Megginson's
> > documentation of XAF [1], which implements a subset
> > of AFs for XML. I'll try to read [2] in the future,
> > especially for the meta-DTD part, but right now my
> > brains just melt at the idea of reading a document
> > which calls its sections 'subclauses'. Apparently
> > those people like giving complex names to trivial
> > concepts :P.
>
> It's all in the interests of precision and clarity.
>
> In my 16 years of standards work, I've learned that if
> you want a standard to work, you have to think like an
> engineer.  But if you want it to be adopted, you have
> to think like a politician.  The two mindsets are
> sometimes incompatible.  Where they were incompatible,
> I've generally chosen to make the standard really work,
> in preference to early, easy adoption.  For me, it's a
> professional thing.
>
> The other approach, however, tends to enjoy quicker
> success.  It is not an accident that the notoriously
> vague French language is the traditional language of
> diplomacy.  For some reason, vagueness is generally
> more palatable.  I regret that the precise language
> that I, among others, have labored to produce is so
> off-putting for so many people.  I know no other way to
> make a standard that can withstand the stress of
> implementation and deployment, while actually meeting
> its original requirements.

Wooops I should have made sure that none of 'these people' were reading the
list before writing that :P. I've received a few private answers due to this
remark, so please accept my apologies if I offended anyone.

My point was just that I was looking for a introductory document to AFs and
found that the difference between David's very practical introduction [1]
and the original specs' extensive use of never-seen-before terms [2] was
quite amusing.

After sending my mail, I did find an introductory article by W. Eliot Kimber
[3] which was referenced on xml.com's resources on AFs [4].

For my defense, may I cite Mr Kimber ?

"Like any formal mechanism, the SGML architecture mechanism has its own
jargon, which while internally consistent, may not always be intuitively
descriptive in a general context."

That was exactly what I meant.

Best regards & my apologies,
Nicolas

[1] http://www.megginson.com/XAF/
[2] http://www.ornl.gov/sgml/wg8/docs/n1920/html/clause-A.3.html
[3] http://www.isogen.com/papers/archintro.html
[4] http://www.xml.com/pub/rg/Architectural_Forms