- From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 12:26:31 +0100
- To: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Cc: John Lumley <john@saxonica.com>, EXPath CG <public-expath@w3.org>
On 5 August 2013 11:35, Michael Kay wrote:
> I've always thought the 8-character structured codes of the QT
> specs reminded me of the COBOL era. I resisted them but it
> wasn't worth a fight. But if we're changing the namespace
> rules, we could also go for meaningful local names, e.g.
> bin:NegativeOffset
> bin:OctetOutOfRange
> bin:EmptySearchArgument
I like this. Probably more using the same naming scheme as
function names:
bin:negative-offset
bin:octet-out-of-range
bin:empty-search-arg
> However, your suggestion that it's still possible to change the
> rules for other specs makes me wonder: how are we going to get
> the specs to a point where we deem them frozen? We can't just
> leave them sitting around as drafts for ever, changing them
> when we feel like it.
Yes, I know this is a problem. Since no spec is in 1.0 status,
I feel like we can change them (which I think is fair). But some
of them should be advanced to 1.0 really, like the HTTP Client.
As a matter of fact, I was discussing that very point with Adam
yesterday afternoon, and we have plans to advance some of them
soon to 1.0.
I take this as the last opportunity we have to change anything
in those ready-to-advance-to-1.0 drafts.
Maybe this calls for a simple "coding standard" (or naming
scheme) on the wiki. I will try to put up something on the wiki.
Regards,
--
Florent Georges
http://fgeorges.org/
http://h2oconsulting.be/
Received on Monday, 5 August 2013 11:27:19 UTC