[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] hyphens and file names
On naming conventions, I've begun to believe that hyphens are always preferable to underscores in XML filenames. In URLs they cannot be confused with spaces. In entity names, am I correct to say that they are the only option? (A lowest-common-denominator convention would also avoid spaces in filenames.) If underscores and hyphens are both being used for significantly different file names, perhaps our naming conventions are getting too subtle. There should be a transition diagram that shows what happens to a name as it goes through various conceptual processes (add this substring for this purpose, et cetera), and a corresponding count of length. If there is an accepted maximum length for a filename, that diagram would permit us to calculate the maximum length of the common part of a file name that passes through all the conceptual processes. Bruce -----Original Message----- From: Eric Sirois [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 3:42 PM To: DITA TC list Subject: Re: [dita] Some comments on the latest DITA draft Hi Paul, <snip>For schema structural type files we have typename_mod.xsd et al., whereas for schema domain type files, we have typename-domain.xsd and typename-domain_group.xsd and for override files, we have customization-purpose.* </snip> The typename-domain_group.xsd, for the schema side of things, merely completes the specialization architecture for domain elements (specialization of domain elements - which no one has a requirement for this feature so far - maybe a DITA 2.0 issue) . It's not really mandatory for DITA 1.0 and I will tell Michael to remove from the spec. I'll remove it from the schemas. <snip> Under Modularization in Schemas, we talk about "a name consisting of the root structural element name and_domains.xsd." First, note the missing space before the _; second, notice it's an underscore, not a hyphen; third, notice we've got "domains" (plural). I think we've managed to confuse ourselves with our naming conventions. </snip> The difference between -domain.xsd and _domains.xsd. The former defines the elements for that particular domain. The latter redefines the groups to include the elements from the domain as an equivalent to the original element. Basically, it's it equivalent to XML Schema subsitutionGroup without inheritance. _grp.xsd is equivalent to .ent in the DTDs, but entities don't exist in the schema world. The reason I chose to go with typename_*.xsd is that some of XML IDE are context enhance based on file extensions. Most associate .mod with DTDs and .grp is meaningless to IDEs. Does anyone have a suggestion for another naming convention for _grp.xsd and/or _domains.xsd that would eliminate the confusion between the purpose of -domain.xsd and _domains.xsd? Kind regards, Eric Eric A. Sirois Staff Software Developer DB2 Universal Database - DBA XML Tools Development IBM Canada Ltd. - Toronto Software Lab Email: email@example.com Phone:(905) 413-2841 Blue Pages (Internal) "Transparency and accessibility requirements dictate that public information and government transactions avoid depending on technologies that imply or impose a specific product or platform on businesses or citizens" - EU on XML-based office document formats.