On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Dave Pawson <davep@d...> wrote:

On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 00:39:42 -0500
Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...> wrote:

> > I'd always had the impression (or guessed) that namespaces were
> > partly there in order to bring into XML some of the power and
> > obvious utility of architectural forms.  As a matter of history,
> > was that part of that particular zeitgeist?
>
> Architectural forms were presented as an alternative to namespaces
> that provided similar expressiveness with less ugliness.

The number of times I've heard praise for AF on this list, yet
no one has ever proposed an updated version for XML. Did it
have big holes? Was it SGML only? Any reason why it's not been
reworked?

John Cowan and Jeni Tennison have both proposed and drafted updated AF versions for XML.  And yes, both instances have been discussed primarily on this list.