xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Clark C. Evans" <clark.ev...@manhattanproject.com>
Subject RE: Why AF have nothing to do with my proposal
Date Thu, 23 Dec 1999 05:41:16 GMT
Mike, thanks for sharing.  Thus, from this description:

	AF = "nicer" Namespaces + "limited" XSLT

I say nicer, beacuse Namespaces use attributes, where
AF seems to be using processing instructions... which seems 
far more appropriate -- especially since prefixes [should be]
merely syntax-sugar placeholders for the full namespace URI.

Am I missing anything?

E.Kimber's wrote to Mike Dierken:
> Here, we're binding a local architecture name to the URI
> for the architecture as a whole, as well as binding to a formal
> definition of the syntactic rules for the architecture, which includes
> the set of element type and attribute names valid in that architecture.
> In addition, the architecture standard says that the URI should be
> resolvable to the documentation for the architecture (although there
> should be no processing failure if the architecture URI is not
> resolvable).
> Thus, architectures provide the same level of name globalization that
> namespaces do while providing additional semantic and syntactic bindings
> that namespaces cannot provide (because the namespace spec does not
> define a mechanism for doing it).
> In this sense, architectures are a proper superset of namespaces. There
> is no *syntactic* conflict between the use of namespaces and
> architectures so both can be used together.

View raw message