FYI only (not taking sides in the current debate, which is a permathread), see the naming pattern in this domain:
http://xml.coverpages.org/camelCase.html One of the standard arguments against UNDERSCORE in component names, where the component is further composed into a structure that becomes part of an HTTP scheme URI: the typical browser rendering [underlined link] makes it impossible to detect from a distance whether the character is SPACE or UNDERSCORE. See: http://xml.coverpages.org/ADMIN/blanks/examples.pdf from http://xml.coverpages.org/KaviDocumentExamples.html One of the standard arguments against HYPHEN in component names is that text-processing software will gratuitously grab any possibly opportunity to introduce line-break at a HYPHEN boundary, creating ambiguity between real- and discretionary-HYPHEN, with subsequent data munging; components composed with camel case are not typically subjected to such damage. But again: for any argument one makes, someone can make a counterargument. So goes the permathread... Robin Cover OASIS, Chief Information Architect --------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Colin Paul Adams wrote: >>>>>> "Mitch" == Mitch Amiano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Mitch> No doubt it is that so many people use that convention in > Mitch> programming too. But consider that in many programming > Mitch> languages, zero-or-more would not be an identifier but an > Mitch> expression zero(minus)or(minus)more. So camel case allows > Mitch> you to think of the element and attribute labels as > Mitch> identifiers, without any other mapping. > > That's a very poor excuse, since you can use zero_or_more, which is > even closer to natural english syntax than zero-or-more (in as much as > _ resembles as space more). > -- > Colin Adams > Preston Lancashire >
