RE: [xml-dev] Co-operating with Architectural Forms

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Ummm... why is that so inappropriate?  It seems to 
describe what they are there to define:  a 
means/form to define one's own architecture 
of associations among application languages.

Maybe understanding matters too and some things 
aren't easily understood with a quick glance. Perhaps  
tha is why we have too many web magic words 
and XML myths.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kay [mailto:michael.h.kay@ntlworld.com]

> > | To this day, nobody has explained what's so unattractive about the
> > | AF paradigm, or the precise nature of the esthetics that found the
> > | AF solution "ugly".

I've always said that the main barrier to adoption of "architectural forms"
has been the ludicrously inappropriate name for the concept. Names matter.