- From: <Noah_Mendelsohn/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 23:06:50 GMT
- To: DuCharmR@moodys.com, cowan@locke.ccil.org
- Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Re: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/1999AprJun/0038.html As Henry said: "wow". Really terrific comments. Hope you won't object to my responding to just one of the smaller ones for now. The term "Export" was chosen because: (a) "export" is a natural counterpart to "import", which is itself widely used in programming languages such as Java, and which also starts out life as a verb. (b) "export" has been used for more or less the same purpose in describing other languages such as Modula-3 (http://www.research.digital.com/SRC/m3defn/html/units.html), Pascal* and Mesa (if I recall correctly). I believe that several of these languages used "export" as a declaration, but for now I haven't been able to find corroboration online. I think I was careful to use the word 'export' as a verb, or in quotes when referring to the 'export' declaration itself, or in phrases like "the export declaration". Do you see a problem with such usage? I agree with your concern that other parts of the spec have taken unfortunately liberties in "nouning" some verbs. On a related point from: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/1999AprJun/0045.html >> Clause 4.2: It seems strange to have an "export" element which exists >> (due to the default) primarily to declare what is *not* exported.Also, >> scattering individual export declarations through the schemain imitation of Java >> seems to me a mistake. I prefer the Common Lisp/Ada/C++/etc. style where nothing >> is exported by default and where all*specific* objects to be exported are >> declared at the top of the schema. I agree completely with all of the above. This was never resolved to my satisfaction. My personal preference would be to export nothing by default, as it forces one to be explicit about interdependencies. I know that others would disagree. In any case, I share your concern with the current compromise. The first question to decide is whether we want explicit export control at all: nothing breaks if we just export everything by default. We've received several requests to keep the spec smaller by going that route. If there's agreement that export should be controllable, then we can clean up the details. Noah
Received on Monday, 17 May 1999 19:05:51 UTC