Re: [ubl-lcsc] filenaming - minor rec

[Chin Chee-Kai <cheekai@softml.net>]

Stephen, Ken,

Ref Peter's comment, I've noticed that pre-draft-5 models
were sent as "1.0-alpha" while draft-5, draft-6 and draft-7
models were sent as "1-0-alpha".  And Ken's recent XPaths 
are named as "1-0-alpha" as well.

I had named the schemas "1.0-alpha" following an LC call a while
back, when QA Packaging was setting up, that had tossed around 
advantages and disadvantages about naming with a "." (nicely 
summarised by Peter below).  I recall from memory that there 
were some discussions about why "p" wasn't suitable 
(as in "1p0), why "-" might not be appropriate (as in "1-0"),
and why it'd probably be best leaving it as ".".

Ref: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-lcsc/200308/msg00041.html
para 4 last section on Versioning noted the conclusion.


I'm ok to change if there has been some change of decision.
But more importantly, all our namings should follow the same
format.




Best Regards,
Chin Chee-Kai
SoftML
Tel: +65-6820-2979
Fax: +65-6743-7875
Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net
http://SoftML.Net/


On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Peter P. Yim wrote:

>>This may not be the most appropriate place (or time) to voice this,
>>but I'll give it a try anyway ... hope the right people are listening in.
>>
>> > according to the codelist group recommendation, the codelist
>> > schemas  should be UBL-CodeList-***-Use-1.0-alpha-draft-1.xsd
>>
>>May I suggest naming it as:
>>
>>   "UBL-CodeList-***-Use-1-0-alpha-draft-1.xsd"
>>
>>Leaving only the standard file extension (.xsd in this case) as the
>>only thing behind the "dot", and using only one dot in the entire
>>filename.  This will help with application associations, and in times
>>when the filename needs to be parsed for one reason or another.
>>
>>[I've always recommended, even where long-filenames are used, that
>>only: alphanumeric, "-", "_" and one "." with a file-extension behind
>>it, are used in the filenames.]
>>
>>Regards,
>>PPY