At 04:19 PM 9/13/2002 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>I read this earlier and almost responded; it appears
>the WG is attemping a weak version of architectural
>forms.
>
>Is this another case of changing the names and adopting
>a piece of another technology (namespaces) that makes
>the result more complicated than the original and
>ends up being less powerful?
No, see XHTML Modularization conformance definitions,
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/conformance.html#s_conform .
These terms have been around for several years now (without argument from
the community).
The point of the message is the linking examples, not an ideological
argument about application construction.
Ann
