• From: Michael Fuller <msf@i...>
• To: Arjun Ray <aray@q...>
• Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 18:05:16 +1100

Arjun Ray wrote:
> David Megginson wrote:
> > David Wang wrote:
> > > On a related topic, I'm also wondering about the health of AF -
> > It's pretty-much dead in the water for now -- almost nobody uses AFs
> > or even bothers to defend them 
> This is the saddest part.  The W3C is gung-ho on namespaces, and an
> integral part of the boosterism surrounding this bogosity is the
> obligatory potshot at AFs.

I'm curious: what _are_ the potshots?
Seriously: are there genuine issues, other than "Not Invented Here"?
True shortcomings of some sort that precluded architectural forms
being used as the basis for a namespace-like framework?

Arjun?
Someone from the other side of the debate ;-) to Arjun?

Michael, curiously.

(Town Hall topic, perhaps? Pity I won't be there...)

***************************************************************************
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: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Architectural Forms and XAF
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@q...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML Schemas
• Next by Date: Re: SAX2: relative ordering of startDocument() & startDTD() events?
• Previous by thread: Re: Architectural Forms and XAF
• Next by thread: Re: Architectural Forms and XAF
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread