> At 16:59 24/06/98 -0400, Chris Maden wrote:
> [... excellent points snipped ...]
> >
> >And BTW, I still don't like this capitalization method. I'm all for
> ><xsc:attdef>; I do all my coding by hand (and so will everyone else,
> >until an XSchema editor is written; don't hold your breath).
>
> I have the feeling that - at present - we are moving towards a high
degree
> of consensus. And voting or other individual feedback may be unnecessary.
> Things like capitalisation are purely subjective and great fun. I suspect
> this is one area we might might end up voting. FWIW my capitalisation
> preference is 'fooBar'. And woe to the underscorers!
Personally, I'm amazed it took so long for this to become an issue. I've seen
too many meetings degenerate into endless squabbles about the merits of naming
methods which, as Peter notes and at the risk of sparking a religious war, are
purely subjective. For what it's worth, I took the names as directly from the
XML spec as possible and tried to standardize on mixed caps because (a) I happen
to like mixed caps and (b) I found the spec's semi-mixed-cap scheme confusing.
Assuming Simon is willing to live with the potential search-and-replace tedium
the results might cause, I'm happy to put this up for a vote. I think there are
actually two issues here:
- The names themselves, which are currently taken from the XML spec in hopes of
some recognition, but could also be simplified (ElementDecl -> Element, AttDef
-> Attribute) as some members of this list have suggested.
- Capitalization -- Mixed, under_score_happy, ALLCAPS, nocaps, pSYcHOTic, etc.
If people are interested, I would be happy to put together a ballot and run a
vote.
-- Ron Bourret