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

Re: Should one adopt the tag naming convention of anexisting X

• From: Rob Koberg <rob@koberg.com>
• To: Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
• Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 18:39:38 -0800

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net> wrote:
> The hyphen breaks visual flow.  The underscore delineates under the flow.
> But I only use them ‘n file names.  J


I completely disagree. Hyphens help the flow -- keeps the mind going
naturally to the next. Underscores drop you down - plunk - then you go
back up to return to the flow.

There ought to be a law.

-Rob

(btw, don't care, just joking)

>
>
>
> len
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Lee [mailto:dlee@calldei.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 7:27 PM
> To: 'Uche Ogbuji'; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE:  Should one adopt the tag naming convention of an
> existing XML vocabulary or create one's own tag naming convention?
>
>
>
> I Like My camelCase
>
> Besides its camelCase not "CamelCase"
>
> Maybe "camel-hypenCase_Under-scoreCase.is_BeTer"
>
> But do you prefix it with "_" or "s" or "m" if its a private, static, or
> member variable ?
>
> Thankfully Hungarian has lost its charm ...   I could never figure out what
> to do with an _pidwulshString variable when I changed it to simply char* ...
>
>
>
> I remember an interview with Stroustrup where he advocated under_score_case
> and thought camelCase was a bastard.   Those with opinions .. will they
> never stop pontificating !'
>
>
>
>
>
> I dont particularly like hyphen-case because I can't tell it apart from
> "hyphen" <minus> "case"
>
> even if the compiler can.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> David A. Lee
>
> dlee@calldei.com
>
> http://www.xmlsh.org
>
>
>
> From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche@ogbuji.net]
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 3:18 PM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re:  Should one adopt the tag naming convention of an
> existing XML vocabulary or create one's own tag naming convention?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Here are two possibilities:
>>
>> 1. I will create a my own tag naming convention, independent of the XML
>> vocabularies that I will use.
>>
>> 2. I will adopt the tag naming convention of one of the XML vocabularies
>> that I will use. (Which one?)
>>
>> What do you recommend?
>
>
> There is only one way :) names should be all lower-case, with hyphen
> as a separator.  Camel case, or any thing else really, are awful for
> xml.
>
>
>
> I strongly agree, but of course this one is a very subjective matter. I
> curse Java for its propagation of the CamelCase eyesore.
>
>
>
> --
> Uche Ogbuji                       http://uche.ogbuji.net
> Weblog: http://copia.ogbuji.net
> Poetry ed @TNB: http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
> Founding Partner, Zepheira        http://zepheira.com
> Linked-in: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
> Articles: http://uche.ogbuji.net/tech/publications/
> Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/uche
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/uogbuji
> http://www.google.com/profiles/uche.ogbuji

• References:
  • RE: Should one adopt the tag naming convention of an existing XML vocabulary or create one's own tag naming convention?
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@calldei.com>
  • RE: Should one adopt the tag naming convention of an existing XML vocabulary or create one's own tag naming convention?
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net>