[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: minutes from ER teleconference 20001211
Present: Lauren Wood, Norm Walsh, John Cowan, Tony Coates, Paul Grosso Observers: Terry Allen Absent: David Leland lower case vs camel case vs hyphens: Tony suggests upper camel case for elements and lower for attributes. Norm thinks camel case is harder to type and good editors will take a while so he prefers lower case or hyphens. Paul isn't sure that people will edit catalogs in an editor. Lower case with hyphens is what CSS and XSLFO agreed on and it seems easier. Terry says camel case is more typing and it's prone to error. Lower case with periods would work. If these names are used as identifiers then they can't be used in Java. Do we want one style, or two (one for elements and one for attributes)? Tony wants two in camel case, but not in the hyphen case. John points out that the hyphen overloads the minus sign in most programming languages. John suggests, e.g., for an element Public-id and an attribute public-id to make conversion programming easier. Vote: first question: rule out all upper, all lower without punctuation: no objections. second question: camel case vs punctuation: camel: John, Tony, Lauren punctuation: Norm, Paul Camel case wins. Next question: John moves there should be a difference between elements and attributes: Yes: John, Tony no: Norm, Lauren, Paul Shall they be upper camel case? Yes: nobody No: Norm, John, Tony, Paul abstain: Lauren The names of elements and attributes shall be lower camel case. This shall not constrain extensions. Which document will we start with? John's XML Catalog, or TR 9401? Should we make normative reference to TR9401, or start with it and change it? For example, XML does not make normative reference to SGML. Motion: the ER specification should make normative reference to TR 9401: Yes: No: John, Tony, Norm, Lauren abstain: Paul Proposal to base the ER specification on TR 9401: Yes: Tony, Paul, Norm, Lauren No: abstain: John Proposal: We will express a subset of TR9401 in XML such that each catalog entry (e.g., PUBLIC, SYSTEM, DELEGATE) is an element and the entry contents are expressed as attribute values (e.g., public identifier, href). This is what John did in XML Catalog. No objections. Proposal: The minimal subset of TR9401 semantics is PUBLIC, SYSTEM, DELEGATE, CATALOG, BASE and some extension mechanism. No objections. Proposal: that the semantics of TR9401 BASE be expressed not as an element, but using the methods of xml:base. No objections. One problem is that BASE semantics involve scope, or until the end of the document. We may need a grouping element, or to allow xml:base on every element. This should be an issue. John informally proposes that the root element be the grouping element, i.e., that it can be recursive (be a child of itself). Action to John to put this in email for discussion. Norm will construct a first draft (TR 9401 as it stands) and a second version (deleted extraneous matter). He will put them on the web site. He will also have a first draft of the web site done by the end of the week. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/entity/index.shtml is our web site; note that it is public (as are our mail archives). Next meeting is in four weeks since we don't meet on December 25th. Lauren
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC