- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:21:23 -0500
Matthew Thomas wrote:
> On 13 Feb, 2005, at 9:26 PM, Matthew Raymond wrote:
>>6) Someone should suggest a new name if they don't like the current
>>one.
>
> <entry>.
There are a few problems with this name:
1) An <entry> element could easily be confused for being an entry in a
weblog or similar document. It could also be confused for being some
kind of entry point for something, like insertion of content. It just
doesn't have a very clear meaning. In fact, if you go here...
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=input
...you'll notice that entry isn't even listed as a synonym of input.
2) There's nothing about the name "entry" that allows people to
associate it with the <input> element (which it's modeled on).
3) There's nothing about the name "entry" that people can associate with
legacy content.
I could live with _<dataentry>_, though. That's very clearly an
input element, and it has a mild phonetic association with <datalist>,
which itself supports legacy content. (My only issue is that it's a
little on the long side, but then to a lesser extent so is <icomplex>.)
Received on Monday, 14 February 2005 07:21:23 UTC