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

RE: ISO 11179

• To: 'Bryan Rasmussen' <bry@i...>, 'Marc de Graauw' <marc@m...>
• Subject: RE: ISO 11179
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:24:19 -0500
• Cc: "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>

Bloated and leads to problems of scale in low power 
devices.  Carrying an object-oriented context around 
in every file is an academic solution to a non-problem.

The problem of context is viewpoint. These naming specs 
assume maximum independence of local data.  That is never true in real 
systems.  The environment of interoperation which sets 
the energy budget is more important than the theoretical 
lifecycle. 

There is a tradeoff between naming conventions and namespace 
conventions in the hierarchy of the document.  GJXDM is an 
excellent example of naming conventions become deranged. It 
takes too long to sort out the intended semantic just to 
find the int at the bottom of the deep well.

len


From: Bryan Rasmussen [mailto:bry@i...]

In our case we pretty much just refer to ISO 11179 as the origin of our
rules
and then enumerate the rules used which comes out to probably 20 pages. So
we
don't necessarily have bloat. The problem is dogmatic use of these rules
which
I've seen lead to some pretty unusable names. I think Jonathan Barwell had
some
sensible suggestions on those lines.

That said the thunk factor is obviously important in the context of how much
benefit one derives in relation to the number of pages in a spec. The
benefits
of reading and using the ISO specs are all pretty much soft benefits and I
doubt
they will very appealing to people for these reasons. 

• Prev by Date: Re: Document oriented experience reports anyone?
• Next by Date: Re: Document oriented experience reports anyone?
• Previous by thread: RE: ISO 11179
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread