[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: FW: Why "Key name"?
FYI > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ekimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com] > > Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 5:17 PM > > To: Ogden, Jeff > > Subject: Re: Why "Key name"? > > > > On 11/2/09 5:48 PM, "Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com> wrote: > > > > > Key References are references to Key Names plus an optional sub-element > > > ID, so Key References are not just references to Key Names. > > > > I think I see the distinction you're trying to make, but I think it's a > > side effect of poorly-titled topics and imprecise descriptions of attributes > > and addressing. > > > > However, in trying to describe what the language *should* be I've convinced > > myself that while "key name" is no *better* than "key" it's no worse > > either and might help some readers make sense of the less-than optimal > > language in the 1.2 spec. > > > > So I won't object to your suggestions. However,
I would feel better > > about it if the
language change was brought before the TC for approval. > > > > Cheers, > > > > E. > > ---- > > Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc. > > email: ekimber@reallysi.com <mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com> > > office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368 > > 2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403 > > www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com> | > http://blog.reallysi.com > > <http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com > > <http://www.rsuitecms.com> > > ----------------- > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ogden, Jeff > > Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 5:48 PM > > To: 'ekimber' > > Subject: RE: Why "Key name"? > > > > Key References are references to Key Names plus an optional sub-element > > ID, so Key References are not just references to Key Names. > > > > -Jeff > > ---------------- > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ekimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com] > > > Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 4:36 PM > > > To: Ogden, Jeff > > > Subject: Re: Why "Key name"? > > > > > > On 11/2/09 5:25 PM, "Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com> wrote: > > > > > > > The key thing for me is that we pick one or the other and stick with it. > > > > And I happen to prefer "key name" over "key" because it seems a little > > > > clearer and reads a bit better. For example having "Key Reference" and > > > > "Key Name" seems to be more parallel and clearer than having "key > > > > reference" and "key". > > > > > > But a key reference is a reference to a key, just like an ID reference > > > is a reference to an ID. We don't say reference to an ID name. > > > > > > I'm afraid I'm not buying your argument. > > > > > > The notion of unqualified "key" in the sense of something you look up seems > > > pretty well established in computer science. > > > > > > It just seems like an odd terminology change to make now. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > E. > > > > > > ---- > > > Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc. > > > email: ekimber@reallysi.com <mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com> > > > office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368 > > > 2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403 > > > www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com> | > > http://blog.reallysi.com > > > <http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com > > > <http://www.rsuitecms.com> > |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]