• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 21:49:53 +0000
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B949@HQ5>
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B949@HQ5>

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> wrote:

| I read this earlier and almost responded; it appears the WG is attemping 
| a weak version of architectural forms.

Yes.  But stuff like location="@href" - shades of XPath/Xpointer - is
going to run into the name clash problem again, for which the answer
predictably trotted out wil be that it's gotta be hlink:location or
someuch.  (I predict a comment to this effect - reiterating the primacy of
dogma - from W3C Liaisons or Other Leading Lights)

| Host language == Markup application language 
| Integration language == Architectural forms

I'm not sure about this.  AFs would seem to apply to both.

| It was noted when architectural forms were invented that an application 
| language could be used as an architectural form and by a "top level form", 
| an architectural form could become an application language.

Precisely.

| Is this another case of changing the names and adopting a piece of another 
| technology (namespaces) that makes the result more complicated than the 
| original and ends up being less powerful?

Sshhhh!

• References:
  • RE: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration languages]
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
• Next by Date: Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
• Previous by thread: Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
• Next by thread: Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread