• From: Steven Rowe <sarowe@t...>
• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:20:27 -0500

"W. Eliot Kimber" wrote:
>
> NOTE: I have no particular love of the current AF implementation
> approach. It was the best we could do within the constraints of not
> being able to change the SGML standard, so we had to make do with
> attributes, we couldn't invent new declaration types, we couldn't change
> content model syntax, etc. AFs work as is (obviously, as we've used them
> to good advantage for years now), but the mechanism could be much
> improved. It was (and is) my hope that XML Schema would do AFs better
> than we can do them now for the very reason that XML Schema is not bound
> by the same restrictions we were.

Eliot,

What would you like to be able to do with XML-Schema (but can't) that
you can now do with AFs?  Is the problem space targetted by XML-Schema
a superset (at least an improper one) of that which is solved by AFs?

Steve Rowe
MNIS-TextWise Labs

***************************************************************************
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
***************************************************************************

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Architectural Forms and XAF
    • From: "W. Eliot Kimber" <eliot@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: In praise of SVG
• Next by Date: RE: ANNOUNCE: New release of X-Tract
• Previous by thread: Re: In praise of SVG
• Next by thread: Re: Architectural Forms and XAF
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread