[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> I have been slow to come to agreement. I've always thought there should be
> many alternative ways to represent the Infoset, but I think in light of the
> whole XPath discussion, that I do finally agree. A standard serialization
for
> Inforset extensions, based on the XPath 1.0 data model, or minor extensions
> thereof, could be a lynch pin for an annotation and declarations framework
for
> XPath-NG.
I agree with this.
> That having been said, I hope we don't end up with the horrible name
"reflect"
> for the function. I've always hated the terms "reflection" and
> "introspection" in their current CS sense because of their meaninglessness in
> the light of general English usage.
Yes, and I thought your "annotation" was the best candidate so far,
but in the light of an infoset it doesn't feel quite right anymore. Maybe
just "property" would do it? But it could be too close to "system-property"
(which would be less of a problem if it was introduced as an axis). Here's
another
one: "aspect" or "facet".
Cheers,
David
|
