At 15:45 16/10/2002, Togan Muftuoglu wrote: >* Norman Walsh; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 16 Oct, 2002 wrote: >>I'm personally quite unhappy with this proposal as it's written. It > >me too with what I see below :-) > >>adds five fairly general sounding element names (setup, scenario, >>task, objective, and solution) in a fairly narrow context. Experience >>suggests that this is too specific; it will work for some people, but >>it will spawn frequent requests for more flexibility and new >>special-purpose elements. > >Objective in my opionion is a higher level element. ><module> ><moduleinfo> ><title></title> ><objective> > <orderedlist> > <listitem> </listitem> > <listitem> </listitem> > <</orderedlist> ></moduleinfo> >..... > ><exercise> > <exerciseinfo>...</exerciseinfo> > <exercisesection><title>Setup</title>... > <exercisesection><title>Scenario</title>... > <exercisesection><title>Task</title> > <exercisesection><title>Solution</title> ></exercise> ></module> > >How this sound to you ?
Agree with Norm about exercisesection being quite a mouthful, Either his generic section, or is there a policy on abbreviating? <exsection> Too short? <exersection> then? regards Davep >-- > >Togan Muftuoglu
