Re: SVG12: getPresentation* naming

* Dean Jackson wrote:
>I didn't make an argument about consistency, I made an
>argument about clarity. If you meant "clarity" then 
>I have to disagree strongly with abbreviated names. The
>fact that SVG 1.1 has some unclear methods names doesn't 
>mean we should continue to be unclear.

You failed to prove that any shorter name would be less "clear". I do
not see how getPresentationTrait() would be clearer than getATrait(),
the term "presentation value" is only used for the definition of the
accessor methods in SVG, "presentation" is basically only used for
"presentation attributes" and one might think of the method as e.g.
getPresentationAttributeTrait() as I've pointed out. Traits are new
anyway, people unfamiliar with SVG 1.2 would now know them at all.
So your assertion that long names == better names seems a fallacy.
And whether the method actually refers to what SMIL considers the
"presentation value" is not yet clear to me.

>Oh, maybe I misread your comment. Do you suggest getAnimatedTrait?
>On first glance I agree with you. (Or getAnimTrait? I'm not a fan
>of that)

I do not understand traits well enough to propose a name. It seems
getAnimatedTrait would not specify the namespace though, I have
doubts about introducing such legacy methods as pointed out in

  http://www.w3.org/mid/4320a5cd.137811484@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de

which the Working Group ignored.

>Ouch! That's the second time in a few days someone has
>claimed we "ignore" issues. 

Yes, this is a frequent concern on this list.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Sunday, 22 May 2005 01:37:49 UTC