Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Tim Larson dijo:
--- Antonio Gallardo wrote: <snip naming and usage discussion/>
Thanks for the analysis. Obviously the documentation needs to be expanded and made more understandable. I have been exchanging emails with Marc discussing the purpose, implementation and future plans for this code. I am going to sleep now, but when I get a chance I will forward some of these private emails to the list (I already have Marc's permission to share his comments, if needed).
Thanks for the answer.
I would be really good to share the discussion.
it was never planned to be kept private, it just happened (as it probably happens more on the side of lists like these I presume),
in any case (and back to topic), I'm with Antonio here to question if we should let known programming-language (be it C or Java) constructs influence the naming here. I really think they are no match for the target-audience of people writing woody stuff?
I would suspect those to be typically more comming from the web-design area where historically js, html, css, flash and the likes have made up the realm of their thinking? From a pure intellectual perspective I think woody definition stuff is conceptually the closest to one of XML Schema writing, UML Class diagramming and ERD writing...
From that perspective I would recommend as a general line of thinking to choose names reflecting concepts from XSD, relaxNG, UML while making sure they would not be confusing to people aware of HTML,css,js?
Hm, so taking up that rule, maybe we should avoid the confusion with HTML's <select><option> and should maybe rather let <wd:union> become a <wd:choice>
-marc= -- Marc Portier http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/mpo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
