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

Re: Two renames

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:34:04 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <87ps41utr7.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh writes:
|> 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:documentation

I think that's two nods in favor of p:documentation and one for
p:description. Anyone else want to weigh in?

|> I like p:document but if that's too similar to p:doc(umentation), then
|> I guess I could live with p:uri.
| How about p:source -- I think 
|  <p:source href="....."/>
| will sit well alongside p:inline, p:pipe and p:empty.

I like p:source better than some of the other possibilities. Jeni,
how does that sound to you?

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Ambition, n. An overmastering desire to
http://nwalsh.com/            | be vilified by enemies while living and
                              | ridiculed by friends when
                              | dead.--Ambrose Bierce

Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2007 14:34:17 UTC

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