[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Steven R. Newcomb wrote:
>
> 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.
An AF, and if you would prefer to qualify, at the syntactic level, defines a
relatively simple type of transform: e.g. you replace a set of names with
another set of names. From a requirements point of view, an AF could be
compiled into an XSLT.
To say it another way: when I consider whether two document forms contain
the same information, I see whether one can create an XSLT to go from one to
the other and vis versa.
>
> 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.
I think people are indeed using XSLT as a type of AF, just not calling it
that -- so the concept is quite useful and does live. One might question
whether XSLT is the simplest way to represent an AF, but nonetheless an AF
is a transform.
Jonathan
|
