W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > June 2007

Re: Two renames

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:11:45 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <87lkeqmhla.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh wrote:
|> / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
|> | 2. From <p:document> to <p:load> because:
|> |
|> |    (a) confusion with <p:doc>
|> |    (b) in a future version we might want to allow nested steps within
|> | <p:input>; <p:document> does the same as the <p:load> step, so they
|> | should be called the same thing
|> Only if we get rid of p:load as a step. :-)
| I definitely don't want to get rid of <p:load> as a step. If you don't
| want to rename <p:document> to <p:load> (you haven't said why not)

I think it would be deeply confusing to have a step and a "syntax
element" with the same name.

    <p:option name="href" value="somedoc.xml"/>

    <p:input port="stylesheet">
      <p:load href="somedoc.xsl"/>

Isn't that even worse than the confusion that you're pointing out?

| then could we at least call it something that *won't* get confused
| with <p:doc> (which is the only element that breaks the 'no
| abbreviations' rule), such as <p:file>, or rename <p:doc> to
| <p:description> or something.

Yes, p:doc is a bad name. We came to that rather suddenly as I recall
and never revisited it. I'd be happy with p:documentation and I could
live with p:description, I think.

I like p:document but if that's too similar to p:doc(umentation), then
I guess I could live with p:uri.

Another problem I have with p:load in this context is that it's a verb
and the alternatives (p:inline, p:pipe, p:empty) aren't.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | It costs a great deal to be reasonable;
http://nwalsh.com/            | it costs youth.--Madame de la Fayette

Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 19:12:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:43 UTC