OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[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]