Subject: RE: [xsl] Long Namespaces From: "Michael Kay" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 23:48:52 +0100 |
There's some kind of law about natural language that says short words are used more often than long words. Language has evolved that way because it improves communication. When you have a concept that is very frequently referenced, it's best to use a short name for it, because this reduces the time taken by the reader to recognize it. So for a namespace like xsl or xs which is used hundreds of times in a stylesheet, a short prefix works well. It's likely that the saxon namespace will be used less often, so a slightly longer name is appropriate. I think a short prefix also helps the reader to focus their attention on the local part of the name, which is the part that carries more information. There's a school of thought, of course, which tries to ban short names like "i" and "j" from programming entirely. This is of course a stupid over-reaction to programs that over-use such names. The fact of the matter is that bad programmers will produce unreadable code whatever disciplines you impose on them. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Stubsjoen [mailto:kstubs@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 07 June 2007 18:58 > To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [xsl] Long Namespaces > > Is there any creed that suggests that namespace decelerations > are either bad or shunned upon? It seems that 3 letter > namespaces are the norm. Is anyone using verbose namespace > declarations regularly? > > Karl..
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Long Namespaces, Abel Braaksma (onlin | Thread | Re: [xsl] Long Namespaces, Karl Stubsjoen |
RE: [xsl] Trouble selecting nodes f, Michael Kay | Date | Re: [xsl] Long Namespaces, Karl Stubsjoen |
Month |