Lists Home |
Date Index |
1/29/2002 11:13:50 AM, Gavin Thomas Nicol <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Absolutely agree. When namespaces were first proposed, I was among
>camp that believed (still do!!) that they did not belong in the
>and that AF-style processing is usually enough. A lot of good
>can be learned from AF's.
>Alpha-renaming (aka namespaces) is useful, not necessary, and
>certainly doesn't need standardization, even now.
I'm not clear on how AFs handle the problem that namespaces address.
AF's are about mapping names in one architecture to names in another
architecture, right? Namespaces are about making names globally
unique so that tags from different "architectures" can be mixed in
the same document. I can see that at some higher level they could be
used as different ways to assign semantics to syntax, but that seems
like an application of NS or AF, not inherent to either.
What am I missing, other than the fond memories of a dispute that I
didn't participate in :~) ?