[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: infinite depth to namespaces
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>
- To: "Fuchs, Matthew" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:22:24 -0400
On 31 Aug 2001 10:40:14 -0700, Fuchs, Matthew wrote:
> Perhaps because there is often no single "best-practice" - I think I'd
> expect you of all people to realize that. Often what is most important is
> there be consistent practice - the principle of least surprise, or something
> like that. Consistency is often more important than optimality.
I think you must have a rather different understanding of "best
practices" from mine. My understand of "best practices" isn't "optimal
way to do things" but rather "how best to avoid difficulties within the
context of a given specification set". In that understanding, best
practice typically values consistency as much as (and frequently more
Common XML , for instance, is a best practices document focused on
consistency rather than making optimal use of XML 1.0's features.
I had thought this usage of "best practices" was pretty ordinary in
computing (things like IETF Best Current Practice documents), but maybe
it's rarer than I'd thought.
I'd originally written:
> > Simple best-practice solutions are fairly easy to come up with, but
> > seemingly just as easy to shoot down, suggesting that there
> > may never be
> > consensus on these issues.
 - http://simonstl.com/articles/cxmlspec.txt