> Diwaker asked me once about the naming conventions the contracts should > follow. I believe I never gave you an answer.
no problemas :) > Now leather-dev is based on this contracts. I reckon you can remember > the discussion about leather/scale-dev where we agreed that the designer > needs design hooks (absolute positioning is too limiting). ...and the > work on views finally started. ;-) I agree. However, I think we should clearly identify *who* is it that we are targeting the contracts for? Note that the end-user never knows about contracts. It is the skin designer who has to know the contracts. I am with you in setting up a standard for naming conventions, but I think the naming should reflect the content *in context* of the designer. > For example I want to rename "pdf-link" to "content-pdf" because it > describes better the functionality of the contract. Now writing this > line I realized that "content-main-pdf" would describe this contract > even better, because the outcome pressing the link will be the main > content in pdf-format. To make my point clear, consider the same pdf-link example. As a skin designer, I need to know what this contract will do for me. Now this particular contract will put a _link_ to the _pdf_. When I'm designing the skin, that is more important to me, than knowing that when the link is pressed, the main content opens up in PDF -- that is something for the end-user. So IMHO, pdf-link is actually a good name, because it says exactly what it does -- "if you include me in your view, i will output a link to the pdf" > I need some input about renaming the contracts to follow the simple rule > "contract name expresses the functional output of the contract" Precisely. The "pdf-link" contract's functionality is generating a link to the pdf. Just my 2 cents :) But I'm not too picky about names. If there is a consensus on any one naming scheme, I'm mostly fine with it. -- Diwaker Gupta http://resolute.ucsd.edu/diwaker
