• To: "'Steven R. Newcomb'" <srn@c...>,"'Lars Marius Garshol'" <larsga@g...>
• Subject: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:11:02 -0000
• Cc: "'xml-dev'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <m33d0fflmp.fsf@d...>
• Reply-to: <michael.h.kay@n...>

> > | To this day, nobody has explained what's so unattractive about the
> > | AF paradigm, or the precise nature of the esthetics that found the
> > | AF solution "ugly".

I've always said that the main barrier to adoption of "architectural forms"
has been the ludicrously inappropriate name for the concept. Names matter.

Michael Kay
Software AG
home: Michael.H.Kay@n...
work: Michael.Kay@s...

• References:
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@c...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Namespace terminology
• Next by Date: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Previous by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread