Hi, Woody widget's name are used for GUI; so why not use the GUI vocabulary?
Just kidding. I do think however that ppl using Woody (which I am) will have more an HTML background than a "programming" one (assuming than programming means using a llot of unions) Le Lundi 05 Janvier 2004 14:35, Tim Larson a �crit : > --- Marc Portier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > it was never planned to be kept private, it just happened > > True. > > > 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? > > We need some of the concepts that come from programming languages, > but both of you may be right that it should not influence the naming. > > > 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? > > Then it is a good thing I asked on the list. My background is from > other programming languages, not XML, HTML, UML, etc. > > > 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> > > +1 > > --Tim Larson > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003 > http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
