Re: Namespaces are dead.

At 11:22 AM 6/5/99 -0500, Steven R. Newcomb wrote:
>I'm glad you brought this up, Rick, because I have never heard a good
>argument as to why architectural forms were rejected in the first
>place.  To me, it looks as though they were rejected simply because
>many RDBMS applications professionals don't yet think in
>object-oriented terms.  (But that's changing.)

Architectural forms were rejected because it was a design goal to
assign namespaces both to elements and to attributes, and the AF
syntax for doing with this attributes was felt to be indefensibly
hideous. 

As David Megginson has pointed out on several occasions, namespaces
solve an entirely different problem, and interoperate with AFs just
fine. -Tim