[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 10/19/02 02:50 PM, you wrote:
>On the other hand, the fact that AF never took off may be some kind of evidence
>that working in abstractions beyond the markup is only a minority need (at least
>as far as publishing is concerned). Also, AF processing is a kind of transformation
>on the document, where you can rename, strip and perhaps flatten elements: this
>is different from providing a type lattice.
I understand that type derivation attacks more problems than those addressed by Architectural Forms, and that AF didn't take off as much as some had hoped. But, in the context of the recent linking debates, it seems to me that lately more people understand the value (I'll stop short of using the word "need") of AF--that a way to define structure and implied processing for element types that can be re-used by developers who need not use specific element and attribute names to take advantage of those structures can solve problems that many are only now becoming aware of.
Bob DuCharme www.snee.com/bob <bob@
snee.com> "The elements be kind to thee, and make thy
spirits all of comfort!" Anthony and Cleopatra, III ii
(bobdc e-mail address used only for mailing lists)
|
