Subject: Re: Case of function names (Was: Re: [xsl] comments on December F&O draft) From: naha@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 15:35:36 -0500 (EST) |
[BTW: I thought we wern't supposed to crosspost] Quoting David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > I think that you could argue it both ways > > Yes every argument has two sides: (right and wrong:-) > > > when the function name > > includes the name of a relevant data type from XML Schema, since > those > > data type names use camel case. It depends on whether you think > people > > will be more confused by the naming conventions of functions being > > unpredictable or by not using the same naming convention when > > referring to the built-in data types within function names as you do > > when referring to them elsewhere. > > The old XSLT 1.1 draft went into great detail about mapping between the > lowercase-hypenated-style to the camelCaseStyle in order to preserve th > enature of xpath names. > > If you are mapping xpath hyphenated names to a language that doesn't > allow - in names and conventionally uses camel case, then it is natural > to drop the hyphens and to camel case the component words. In > particular > you _have_ to drop the hyphens when going in that direction. Thus it is > natural when going in the other direction _from_ a camel case naming > convention to do the opposite, to lowercase and add hyphens. Of course > schema names are qnames so could have hyphens, but don't, but I believe > the same principle should apply. I remember when hyphens were replaced by underscores when mapping names to languages which were too empoverished to allow hyphens in names. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Case of function names (Was: Re, Michael Kay | Thread | Crossposting (Was: Re: Case of func, Mulberry Technologie |
[no subject], sqjfh hjfskjf | Date | Re: [xsl] Can I find out the names , Joerg Heinicke |
Month |