Lists Home |
Date Index |
Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> I would strongly oppose a move for abbreviation of extension axes. For one
> thing, this would throw chaos into the idea of having a basic grammar for
> XPath. I also think it would be terribly confusing for the users. What if
> two groups choose "#" for their abbreviated axis name? Users could see "#" as
> meaning type axis in some examples/implementations and "#" meaning hyperlink
> axis in another. Would we have to end up with a global registry of abbeviated
> axis names? And wouldn't there then be a hasty lang-grab for cute and
> memorable abbreviations?
I agree, I don't think arbitrary extension axes should have abbreviations.
However, if there was a single axis for this e.g. annotation::, it might be
feasible with an abbrevition.