Tim Larson dijo: > --- 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.
Yep. I am from the "old school". I finished my MSc. degree in summer 1995. But I can learn "new" tricks. ;-) > >> 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 +1 too. Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo
