• From: David Wang <dwang@m...>
• To: Arjun Ray <aray@q...>
• Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:23:53 -0500

> > It seems like a great "hack" enabled by hijacking DTDs.  The more
> > I read about it, the more convinced I became that AFs are indeed
> > hacks.
> 
> Not really.  It's about pruning trees (with possible local shuffling
> of morphologically fungible parts.)

Oh, *that*'s the part of AF that everyone's abuzz about?  Ok, given that
context, I can see the excitement.  How is it much different than the
monolithic XSLT work going on right now (is it a fair analogy to say
that the virtual "architectural document" can be created by some
hard-coded XSL stylesheet - if not, how exactly does XSLT relate to
"generating the architectural document", if any).

I mean, I see half of AF as a way of specifying the association between
elements/attributes, respectively (not elements to attributes, though),
and the other half is the pruning/reordering the morphologically
fungible parts.  Is there anything I'm grossly missing?

/David


***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
***************************************************************************

• References:
  • Re: Architectural Forms and XAF
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@q...>

• Prev by Date: Re: A certain difficulty
• Next by Date: i4i and S4/Text?
• Previous by thread: Re: Architectural Forms and XAF
• Next by thread: XML Schemas
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread