RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Comments on Markup Naming positions

["Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com>]

At 12:49 PM 11/15/01 -0600, Burcham, Bill wrote:
>I'll take the other side on this one.  My recommendation:
>elements/attributes are named in a different universe from types
>(simple/complex) -- didn't want to use the term "namespace" there... whew!

(In the XSD Working Group, we called them "symbol spaces". :-)

>See section 2.2.3 Naming Conflicts in the Schema Primer
>http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#NamingConflicts  If you need to name some
>type the same as some element you may do so without resort to "name
>mangling" (like xxxType).  Also, the context should be sufficient to
>determine whether what you're reading is an element name or a type name, so
>you shouldn't need help there.

I agree that you're technically correct, and I only have a mild preference 
for the suffix, but I have found it somewhat useful when documenting and 
discussing these things if you don't have big fat name clashes.  E.g., if 
you use (say) a documentation convention where you embolden the names of 
types and elements similarly, you have to always qualify a mention of one 
of them so that it's not ambiguous.  (And it's not uncommon to use roughly 
the same typographic convention for all these things, because it's too 
distracting to come up with different conventions for each little distinction.)

Maybe all we need is a straw poll to decide this one next time...

         Eve
--
Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center   eve.maler @ sun.com