- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 10:13:28 -0700
- To: "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@techno.com>, ricko@allette.com.au
- Cc: xml-dev@ic.ac.uk, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
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
Received on Saturday, 5 June 1999 13:13:49 UTC