W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > November 1999


From: Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor <roconnor@uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 20:24:37 -0500 (EST)
To: W3C HTML <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95q.991123200714.10104A-100000@wronski.math.uwaterloo.ca>
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Murray Altheim wrote:

> No, that is simply not true. If one attempts to incorporate the CALS table
> DTD into one's doctype, if there are name clashes nothing AFs provide will
> keep that from happening. The one (and only one) thing that the XML Namespace
> Recommendation is good for is name disambiguation. AFs allow you to map a
> name into an architecture, which is a rather different process.

Oops, you are right.  I should say AF solve the same problem in a
different and more flexible way.

But, with my understanding, your point is flawed.  If out add CALS to the
DTD it will break in XML just as it will in SGML.  If you add CALS as an
achitecture, name collisions need to be sorted out at in the document,
just as it needs to be done in XML.  In xml you use the foo: previx,  in
AF its a few more keystrokes, to do a name remapping, but that should be

I could be mistaken,  I'm far far from an AF expert.

> but while I like AFs I don't think they're going
> to fly in the boy's club. Just being pragmatic, here.

I agree, but I am hoping AF do pick up.  They seem really awsome. Theres
a good example of documented DSSSL code that uses AF (since DSSSL is
a AF).

Russell O'Connor                           roconnor@uwaterloo.ca
``And truth irreversibly destroys the meaning of its own message''
-- Anindita Dutta, ``The Paradox of Truth, the Truth of Entropy''
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 1999 20:24:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:51 UTC