[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word

• From: David Hunter <david.hunter@m...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:14:11 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@a...]

> > Wow.  This seems to me like a pretty hard-line stance.  Is 
> it shared by
> > many?  i.e., that <name> [in a particular namespace] means 
> one thing and one
> > thing only, and that if you want a "name" for something 
> else, then you'd
> > better find another label for the element that contains it?  
> 
> It should only have one _general_ meaning per namespace. 

Okay, this is a little less hard-line than I thought.  You're saying that I
should feel free to use a <name> element in any context in the document, as
long as it is always for a name - whether it be a company's name, a person's
name, etc.



> > So I guess I am most uncomfortable with the term "best 
> practice" - I don't
> > think that there is a whole lot of agreement on this issue, 
> to put it
> > mildly.
>  
> If you don't believe that some practises can be better than 
> another, or that one
> practise has ramifications which we need to tease out in 
> order to judge which
> route to take, or when to use one approach and when to take 
> another, then
> what do you suggest the alternative software engineering 
> approach is?  
> Passively accept whatever the big stakeholders shove down our throats 
> and say "thank you"? 

Oh, I definitely believe in best practices, and I believe that people should
be encouraged to use them.  I'm just not on board with the idea that this is
a best practice.

David

• Prev by Date: parsing umlauts, mutated vowels with SAX
• Next by Date: Namespaces? (was: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word)
• Previous by thread: RE: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word
• Next by thread: RE: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread