I agree that this is not a reasonable behaviour any more, the archetype identifier could be just the default name proposal, but that's all.
David 2012/6/24 Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl> > Please consider following. > > I think it is a weak point to have a file which contains an archetype > having the same name as the archetype-id. > This policy is enforced by as well the OCEAN-editor as the LinkEHR editor > (however the latter has a bug in this). > > I don't know if it is "officially" specified. But the disadvantage is that > information is stored twice in the same file (in the contents and in the > filename), this can cause problems, ambiguities. > > Also, it is unnecessary restrictive, it is impossible to store more > archetypes in one text-file. > > Many programming languages have the same restriction, but often the have > also workarounds for this restriction. > > regards > Bert Verhees > > ______________________________**_________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.**openehr.org<openEHR-technical at > lists.openehr.org> > http://lists.openehr.org/**mailman/listinfo/openehr-** > technical_lists.openehr.org<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org> > -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120625/6f57362d/attachment.html>
