'monitoringScript' ? - why not just 'script' ?

[Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>]

OK, I think I understand the feeling we want to balance
generic use of 'etsm' as a script language with the use
for monitoring and testing, but I find it a little weak that
we call the outermost element 'monitoringScript' when
all it is doing so far is acting as a wrapper. When people
wish to use the script language for other than monitoring
(even for testing as distinct from monitoring) then is there
any benefit to be gained for them from the trouble of
defining an alternative top level element? If there is no
benefit to be gained then they would be inclined to use
'etsm' as is. Then the element we provide out of the box
has a name which is a misnomer. So why not give in and
call it just 'etsm:script'? If we are to change it then maybe
now is best time while there is less to change in the XSLT,
etc.

Best

Steve

Stephen D. Green
Document Engineering Services Ltd