OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: [xml-dev] There is a m eaning

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com> writes:

> Cowan's RNG post makes me think, what if the AF concept 
> were layered above the RNG? A clean separation 
> of validation and semantics seems to be what everyone 
> wants, but not one or the other exclusively.  AFs are 
> expressed as PIs.  Are they irrevocably yoked to DTDs 
> semantically?  They appear to be looking over this example.
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <?IS10744 arch
>   name="somearch"
>   public-id="+//IDN me.com//NOTATION Some Architecture//EN"
>   dtd-public-id="+//IDN me.com//DTD Some Architecture//EN"
>   doc-elem-form="somedoc"
>   renamer-att="somedocnames"
>   options="option1 option2"
> ?>
> <mydoc somearch="somedoc"/>
> 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.)

-- Steve

Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant

voice: +1 972 359 8160
fax:   +1 972 359 0270

1527 Northaven Drive
Allen, Texas 75002-1648 USA


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS