[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com> wrote:
>
> | I just want to point out that I like AFs. I like the ideas behind them,
> | and I appreciate the arguments that have been made that they are a more
> | general system than namespaces.
>
> And leave it at just that, I take it?
>
> | My point is that this is all abstract AFAIC, because I don't use them.
> | None of my tools do, and I haven't got around to using anything that does.
> | I do use namespaces all the time, though, and usually with little incident,
> | so I am naturally fine with a solution based on NS.
>
> This is qualitatively no different than an exchange like: "Why <FRAME>s?"
> "Because they're there".
And why automobiles? Because they're there. You could always use a steam
traction engine to get about, right?
> One would think that on a developer list, there would be a greater than
> usual willingness to consider *developing* alternatives, rather than
> merely finding satisfaction on the basis of what already exists, thanks to
> having caught the fancy of developers who came before.
More rot. Do you design your own programming languages just because none of
the ones you've used are thoretically perfect?
To take a slightly different tack: I use Python. I know that as a matter of
pure theory, Haskell is a superior language to Python. But I'm not going to
use Haskell because Python is so much more useful in practice.
It is all a matter of economics. Developers scratch their itch when they face
a problem big enough to spend the resources on. I have a lot of faith in the
quality of the developers represented on this list (and this is probably one
of the most productive lists you're likely to find, despite its weakness for
philosophical quiddities). The fact that developers here have not, on the
whole, clamored to develop AFs for XML probably says a good deal about the
fact that namespaces are not as big a problem as you like to make them out to
be.
Any anyway, so why don't *you* lead the way and develop something so superior
that we'll have no chaoice but to drop everything and use it?
> It really seems that Afs do *not* have to be rediscovered. They have to
> be reinvented. Leading edge and all that.
This I can agree with. Sometimes lack of adoption means the idea needs a
re-factoring. For one thing, I would not use AFs unless they added some
XPath-like features. In the questionable case that I have a chance to hack
about with John's proposal, as I'd like, I will certainly extend it in such a
way.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
Basic XML and RDF techniques for knowledge management, Part 7 - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think12.html
Keeping pace with James Clark - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-jclark.html
Python and XML development using 4Suite, Part 3: 4RDF - http://www-105.ibm.com/developerworks/education.nsf/xml-onlinecourse-bytitle/8A1EA5A2CF4621C386256BBB006F4CEC
|
