Re: Two renames

/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh wrote:
|> / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
|> | 2. From <p:document> to <p:load> because:
|> |
|> |    (a) confusion with <p:doc>
|> |    (b) in a future version we might want to allow nested steps within
|> | <p:input>; <p:document> does the same as the <p:load> step, so they
|> | should be called the same thing
|>
|> Only if we get rid of p:load as a step. :-)
|
| I definitely don't want to get rid of <p:load> as a step. If you don't
| want to rename <p:document> to <p:load> (you haven't said why not)

I think it would be deeply confusing to have a step and a "syntax
element" with the same name.

  <p:load>
    <p:option name="href" value="somedoc.xml"/>
  </p:load>

  <p:xslt>
    <p:input port="stylesheet">
      <p:load href="somedoc.xsl"/>
    </p:input>
  </p:xslt>

Isn't that even worse than the confusion that you're pointing out?

| then could we at least call it something that *won't* get confused
| with <p:doc> (which is the only element that breaks the 'no
| abbreviations' rule), such as <p:file>, or rename <p:doc> to
| <p:description> or something.

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:document but if that's too similar to p:doc(umentation), then
I guess I could live with p:uri.

Another problem I have with p:load in this context is that it's a verb
and the alternatives (p:inline, p:pipe, p:empty) aren't.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | It costs a great deal to be reasonable;
http://nwalsh.com/            | it costs youth.--Madame de la Fayette