Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@g...> writes: > | 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". > The way schema information is piggy-backed into the > existing schema language in a way that makes it > appear in the instance data rather than in the schema > itself is ugly to me. AFs can work either way. AFs can work if you don't have a DTD, which can be quite important in XML-land. Of course, in that case, you have to provide the AF information in each element's attributes. If there's no schema, there's no other way, is there? XML Namespaces do exactly the same thing. AFs can work more elegantly, of course, if you *do* have a DTD; in that case, you just use #FIXED attributes. This method can keep the AF information completely invisible in the document instances. So what's the problem? > Also very ugly is the way many attribute values end > up being structured in ways that should rather be > structured with markup. Are you saying that AFs are ugly because neither SGML nor XML provides a way to structure attribute values, and that AFs were designed to live within that limitation? It seems unreasonable to complain that the ugliness of AFs is due to the fact that they're designed to actually WORK, even though they have nothing to work with but the SGML and XML markup languages. -- Steve Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant srn@c... voice: +1 972 359 8160 fax: +1 972 359 0270 1527 Northaven Drive Allen, Texas 75002-1648 USA
|
