[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word
- From: David Hunter <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:14:11 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Wow. This seems to me like a pretty hard-line stance. Is
> it shared by
> > many? i.e., that <name> [in a particular namespace] means
> one thing and one
> > thing only, and that if you want a "name" for something
> else, then you'd
> > better find another label for the element that contains it?
> It should only have one _general_ meaning per namespace.
Okay, this is a little less hard-line than I thought. You're saying that I
should feel free to use a <name> element in any context in the document, as
long as it is always for a name - whether it be a company's name, a person's
> > So I guess I am most uncomfortable with the term "best
> practice" - I don't
> > think that there is a whole lot of agreement on this issue,
> to put it
> > mildly.
> If you don't believe that some practises can be better than
> another, or that one
> practise has ramifications which we need to tease out in
> order to judge which
> route to take, or when to use one approach and when to take
> another, then
> what do you suggest the alternative software engineering
> approach is?
> Passively accept whatever the big stakeholders shove down our throats
> and say "thank you"?
Oh, I definitely believe in best practices, and I believe that people should
be encouraged to use them. I'm just not on board with the idea that this is
a best practice.