[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: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@talsever.com>
• To: "xml-dev@lists.xml.org" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
• Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 22:27:29 -0500

On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 14:01:44 +1100, Greg Hunt wrote:
> Do whatever balances consistency and existing local practice to minimise
> mental gear-changing.

Bravo!

Roger, the tools that you supply to [whoever] should be well-made, such 
that they neither cut the hand, nor deceive the eye (don't design a 
hammer that looks like a screwdriver; it may be funny, but it's just an 
annoyance on site).

Merging hyphen-delimited and camelCase?  You're pretty much screwed 
from the start.  For all *your* names, do hyphen-Camel, maybe, but 
expect people to cut themselves with hyphenCamel and deceive themselves 
with hyphen-camel.  If you're in a no-win situation, don't solicit bids 
for no-fail solutions.

As Greg points out: do what you can to make it "feel" consistent for 
users.  For instance: camelCase for new types vs. hyphen-delimited for 
new actions.  One *can* distinguish between XSLT and WXS in that way: 
schema defines "things", xslt defines "actions".  So, hyphenate your 
actions, camelize your things.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis                    amyzing {at} talsever.com
The one thing you can't trade for your heart's desire is your heart.
		-- Miles Vorkosigan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Should one adopt the tag naming convention of anexisting XML vocabulary or create one's own tag naming convention?
    • From: Rob Koberg <rob@koberg.com>

• References:
  • Should one adopt the tag naming convention of an existing XMLvocabulary or create one's own tag naming convention?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
  • Re: Should one adopt the tag naming convention of anexisting XML vocabulary or create one's own tag naming convention?
    • From: Greg Hunt <greg@firmansyah.com>