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

Re: Two renames

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:28:13 +0100
Message-ID: <466EE5BD.9060805@jenitennison.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Norman Walsh wrote:
> / 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 actually prefer p:documentation to p:description, but not if we still 
have p:document. p:annotation or p:information would be other possibilities.

> |> 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?

A bit confusing when we have <p:pipe step="..." source="..." />. We use 
'source' as a generic term for something you can read documents from, so 
that might become confusing. What about p:resource?

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2007 18:28:14 GMT

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