Subject: fields design -- a near-trivial question
From: Paul Rohr (paul@abisource.com)
Date: Tue Mar 14 2000 - 01:58:51 CST
Since Keith has shamed me into digging back through his original fields
proposal, I thought I'd toss a trivial design question out there to see what
people think.
What should our naming convention be for field types?
1. alllowercase
2. MixedCase
3. mostlyMixedCase
4. what_eric_started_with
5. lukes-latest-variant
This is essentially a stylistic question, but it might help to think about
which precedent we'd like to follow for maximum readability. The places
these field types are most likely to appear are:
- in the file format
- in the Insert Field dialog
- in the object model used for scripting
Thus, I'm not sure whether the relevant precedent should be:
- the Word UI
- the RTF file format
- conventions for various scripting languages (JavaScript, Python, etc.)
Since we're going to be changing the file format anyhow (to add field
containers), I'd prefer that we settle this issue once to minimize future
disruptions.
Would someone be willing to spend a little time investigating the various
alternatives here? Seeding consensus with a well-researched suggestion
would be a heck of a lot better than a mini-flame-war based on personal
preferences.
Thanks,
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Mar 14 2000 - 01:53:19 CST