Re: naming conventions

I agree that it is important to have good names, conforming to a naming
convention.  So, I think we should decide on a naming convention and
stick to it throughout the document.

I guess we should decide on the names either before or immediately after
publication of WD2; there will not be much difference in the number of
places where the names are written down between these two points in time.


  Best, Jos

Sandro Hawke wrote:
> One thing on the critical path to an XML syntax that we didn't get to at
> the F2F was the naming of syntactic elements in BLD.  cf:
>     http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/BLD_Name_Issues
> 
> Procedurally, we can keep changing the element names until Last Call,
> but as time goes on, it'll be harder and harder to change them because
> they'll be written down in more and more places.
> 
> Maybe we can't pick good names now, until we have some other dialects,
> so shouldn't bother trying.
> 
> My inclination is to try an on-line straw poll on the names, now, using
> WBS.  But I'm not terribly inclined to do that work if folks aren't
> interested.  Quick thoughts?  (+1, +0, -0, etc.  [1])
> 
>     -- Sandro
> 
> [1] The +1 convention comes from Apache.   They have some cute examples
>     on their voting page, http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>     The whole page is worth reading.
> 

-- 
Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is
thinking with the majority. The second-rate
mind is only happy when it is thinking with
the minority. The first-rate mind is only
happy when it is thinking.
  - AA Milne