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

Re: Two renames

From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:56:23 +0200
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0706111456s2065dd12k94619ae8abe350c1@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

On 6/11/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
> | Norman Walsh wrote:
> | 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.

+1 for p:description

>
> 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.
>

I don't want to change p:inline, p:pipe and p:empty, and I think if we
go for p:description then, there won't be any confusion any more, is
it ?

Mohamed


-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 8 72 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 
Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 21:56:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:53 GMT