Lists Home |
Date Index |
Agree and appreciated. We got into this almost
as a historical review but may be discovering the
technology of AFs has a place beside the others
and what you suggest is exactly what we should
come out of this with: a map. I'm not
quite sure we have all the pieces of the puzzle
yet. As I said, if sharing behavioral semantics
is a goal, none of these solutions seem more
than just a means to point to documents that
describe semantics. The LowlyNotation is the
only one that actually references an executable.
From: Leigh Dodds [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: 31 January 2002 14:58
> To: 'Lars Marius Garshol'; xml-dev
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Co-operating with Architectural Forms
> It may be that AFs are not THE solution, but a solution
> that like so many others (relax, xml schemas, dtds,
> xslt) and so on, once understood and implemented,
> have a niche in which they thrive. If there are
> overlaps in functionality with other specifications,
> so what?
True, but it's useful to find where the overlaps are, and
the environments where each solution is better.
I'll try to summarise the points made in this thread and circulate
it back through the list.