> Do you think that the <xml> format I have used for the first version of > the MediaWiki extension is good ? > Or do you prefer that it looks like Jmol.js a lot more with real call to > jmolButton(...), ... ?
Nico, I took a look at the writeup of your MediaWiki extension in wiki.jmol.org First comments: * I do not think that we should have separate tags for <jmolDevelop> and <jmolButton>. Rather, we should encapsulate all of the jmol-related stuff under a single tag called <jmol>. * Inside the <jmol> tag we can have things like <jmolApplet> <jmolButton> <jmolMenu> I suppose that it would not be absolutely necessary to repeat the 'jmol' prefix for these tags, but I would prefer to do so because I think it would provide better context and would be closer to the Jmol.js function names. However, if there is clear concensus among the xml folks that this type of redundancy is bad style then I would agree to eliminating the jmol prefix. * Within each of these tags there would be a set of tags that would be context-specific. * I will try to come up with a 'strawman' proposal Miguel ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&op=click _______________________________________________ Jmol-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-developers
