- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:56:23 +0200
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 6/11/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say: > | Norman Walsh wrote: > | 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. +1 for p:description > > 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. > I don't want to change p:inline, p:pipe and p:empty, and I think if we go for p:description then, there won't be any confusion any more, is it ? Mohamed -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 8 72 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 21:56:26 UTC