[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Comments on Markup Naming positions
At 12:49 PM 11/15/01 -0600, Burcham, Bill wrote: >I'll take the other side on this one. My recommendation: >elements/attributes are named in a different universe from types >(simple/complex) -- didn't want to use the term "namespace" there... whew! (In the XSD Working Group, we called them "symbol spaces". :-) >See section 2.2.3 Naming Conflicts in the Schema Primer >http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#NamingConflicts If you need to name some >type the same as some element you may do so without resort to "name >mangling" (like xxxType). Also, the context should be sufficient to >determine whether what you're reading is an element name or a type name, so >you shouldn't need help there. I agree that you're technically correct, and I only have a mild preference for the suffix, but I have found it somewhat useful when documenting and discussing these things if you don't have big fat name clashes. E.g., if you use (say) a documentation convention where you embolden the names of types and elements similarly, you have to always qualify a mention of one of them so that it's not ambiguous. (And it's not uncommon to use roughly the same typographic convention for all these things, because it's too distracting to come up with different conventions for each little distinction.) Maybe all we need is a straw poll to decide this one next time... Eve -- Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler @ sun.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC