[PATCH] XML Policy

[Jason Keirstead]

On Tuesday 22 February 2005 5:06 pm, Frans Englich wrote:
> You tell me. Should we skip having a consistent C++ API? No? Then why
> should our XML APIs be inconsistent? In what way is that case different,
> according to you?

It is different in that your proposed rules do not jive with the conventions 
_currently in use_ ( see XMLGUI ).

This proposal would be like me propsing that all public accessors in KDE 
should be prefixed with 'get' as in Java APIs. It runs totally contrary to 
what we are currently doing.

> You say something is wrong, but what is your suggestion to solve it? 

There doesn't need to be a formal policy for XML in KDE. I don't even think 
all XML in KDE needs to have a formal vocabulary definition.

A guideline whereby "Public XML specifications should all have a corresponding 
RelaxNG or XML Schema" would be nice, but is it required for all XML in KDE? 
I don't think so - if some application is using XML for some stuff specific 
to it, and it is not exposed to either the user or a third party developer, 
then what is the benefit of a formal description of that XML? 

Formal descriptions of XML vocabularies are only needed when interoperability 
with third party applications is the reason for using the XML. But there are 
many reasons KDE apps use XML aside from interoperability. 

-- 
If you wait by the river long enough, eventually
you will see the bodies of all your enemies float by.
    - Sun Tzu