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..