Subject: Re: fields design -- a near-trivial question
From: sam th (sam@bur-jud-118-039.rh.uchicago.edu)
Date: Tue Mar 14 2000 - 02:30:55 CST
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Paul Rohr wrote:
> 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
This format is used by:
Perl
rtf
javascript
Python
C/C++
> 2. MixedCase
This format is used by:
WordPerfect on Linux
> 3. mostlyMixedCase
This format (also known as camel case - or maybe that includes 2 also) is
used by:
XML Schemas (still in Working Draft)
> 4. what_eric_started_with
See below
> 5. lukes-latest-variant
This is the format used by:
virtually every XML application, including
XHTML
RDF
XSL
Also, CSS1,2,3
>
Just to be perverse, Java uses 1,2 and 3.
SVG uses 3 and 5
SMIL (a multimedia standard) used 3,4 and 5.
I don't have Word, so I can't check that out.
As to my preference (which, as I am not the one coding, won't have much
impact), I like option 5, mostly for standards reasons. Essentially every
XML application (of which our file format is one) uses it. We even use it
in our style sheets. For the sake of consitency, I think this should be
preserved. This issue (mostly with regard to XML Schemas) was brought up
on XML-DEV a little while back, but not discussed that much.
Hope this sparks discussion
sam th
sytobinh@uchicago.edu
http://bur-jud-118-039.rh.uchicago.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE4zfjBt+kM0Mq9M/wRAsD7AKCCI9cRDkKfyVlWfsYAH6Gkr8imEACgotYE
9jxvLlYc4VPw5V9M04BzBUk=
=V7FP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Mar 14 2000 - 02:30:53 CST