RE: Proposed text for ISSUE-10 - Mapping Element and Type names

I am strongly against any requirement for limitations on alphabetic case beyond that in the schema standard.



Anthony (Tony) Julian
HL7 Infrastructure and Messaging Technical Committee  
Day Job - Mayo Clinic- Information Services 
Phone   507-266-0958
Page    127(10700)
e-mail  ajulian@mayo.edu 
 


-----Original Message-----
From: public-xsd-databinding-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xsd-databinding-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of paul.downey@bt.com
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 9:46 AM
To: edday@obj-sys.com; public-xsd-databinding@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposed text for ISSUE-10 - Mapping Element and Type names



> Do you plan to raise the issue of the case of names as part of this?  
> We have found that it seems more natural for mapping to programming 
> languages if type names are in uppercase and element names are in 
> lowercase.  I think JAXB makes this conversion automatically.

I've seen tools impose a language naming convention, such as Java's camelNamesForProperties and PascalNamesForTypes in the generated code, but that's by no means a common convention in other programming languages and shouldn't leak back onto the wire, no?

> A frequent problem is when schema authors decide to make type and 
> element names the same.  It requires that decorations of some sort be 
> applied to the names to keep them separate.

That's a good point. In a way I see this as being similar to the issue of people giving their types or elements names such as "object" or "customer-order" given it's a language specific problem.  

Paul

Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 16:07:04 UTC