Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 01:11 PM 29/08/01 -0700, Fuchs, Matthew wrote: >Uh, once again the parallel to the original namespace discussion is so >revealing. As I recall, the same arguments were made about the linking from >labels to namespaces - we could have stuck "namespace-pointer attributes" on >every element designating what namespace it should go in. However, >providing a 1-1 map from labels to namespaces was considered crucial, so now >the labels themselves have been expanded to include the namespace. Do you >think that was an error, and we should have adapted architectural forms? If you were only going to namespace elements, I think the AF approach would have been the easy winner. As I recall, applying AFs to attributes involved some syntactic ugliness that scared people away. At one point I was pro-AF enough that I suggested that we just bag the idea of attributes in namespaces, but Jean Paoli and others came up with good use-cases, and in retrospect, namespaced attributes do seem to be awfully useful. -Tim
|
