xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Bray <tb...@textuality.com>
Subject Re: A mathematical vision of XML leads to interesting conclusions
Date Sat, 18 Dec 1999 18:59:47 GMT
At 01:55 AM 12/18/99 -0500, Clark C. Evans wrote:
>You may want to look at Architectural Forms a bit.  Steven Newcomb
>had many e-mails very early on while xml-namespaces was still in
>its infancy.  I believe he was asserting that AF satisfies the
>requirements of xml-namespaces.  I believe the core of the
>argument revolved around multiple-inheritance issues; where 
>several namespaces may overlap significantly.  

Yes, AFs can do everything namespaces can do.  Essentially, AFs do
ISA relationships, allowing you to say this element FOO is really a BAR.
To the extent this is like inheritance, you can have multiple inheritance.
There are a lot of long complicated arguments, but what essentially shot
AFs down in XML-land is that they work pretty well on elements, but for
attributes, the AF syntax is so hideous that nobody could face it.

Maybe the best way to get a handle on AFs is to go to David Megginson's
site at megginson.com and follow the pointers to XAF, an AF processor
for XML in Java, built on SAX (and a nice piece of work BTW). -T.

View raw message