Naming Conventions

I've re-organized the naming conventions page [1], as the chair
suggested, into separate points, so that it's easier to present and
discuss alternative proposals.  I tried to keep the content exactly the
same.  Then I added two proposals for changes that I heard in the telcon
today.

To re-iterate something I said in the telecon: we need to settle these
conventions in order to settle the XML syntax and build working
implementations, so this is critical path by the end of the F2F.  So, as
was resolved today, if you have any objections to any of these
conventions, please propose alternatives (with explanation and reasons
for any differences from what's already on page).

(I want to comment briefly on something that made me annoyed in the
meeting today, as well.  When the names currently put in the draft were
selected, I said I had concerns about them, but we agreed we didn't need
to settle on names at that time, that the naming discussion could wait.
[That's my memory -- I can try to look up the records if anyone
remembers differently.]  Now, today, I think I heard that we shouldn't
try to change the names because they've been stable for so long.  That
was kind of annoying.   If I'm misremembering or misunderstanding,
please let me know.)

    -- Sandro

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/Naming_Conventions

Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2007 17:21:41 UTC