There's some kind of law about natural language that says short words are
used more often than long words. Language has evolved that way because it
improves communication. When you have a concept that is very frequently
referenced, it's best to use a short name for it, because this reduces the
time taken by the reader to recognize it. So for a namespace like xsl or xs
which is used hundreds of times in a stylesheet, a short prefix works well.
It's likely that the saxon namespace will be used less often, so a slightly
longer name is appropriate.
I think a short prefix also helps the reader to focus their attention on the
local part of the name, which is the part that carries more information.
There's a school of thought, of course, which tries to ban short names like
"i" and "j" from programming entirely. This is of course a stupid
over-reaction to programs that over-use such names. The fact of the matter
is that bad programmers will produce unreadable code whatever disciplines
you impose on them.
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Stubsjoen [mailto:kstubs(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: 07 June 2007 18:58
To: xsl-list(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
Subject: [xsl] Long Namespaces
Is there any creed that suggests that namespace decelerations
are either bad or shunned upon? It seems that 3 letter
namespaces are the norm. Is anyone using verbose namespace
declarations regularly?
Karl..
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail:
<mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--