[PATCH] XML Policy

[Frans Englich]

On Tuesday 22 February 2005 21:41, Jason Keirstead wrote:
> 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 ).

That is correct -- it surely contradict what's current practice in the XMLGUI 
format, it is inconsistent. I have never claimed that. I wrote:

"What the policy says, is consistent with whole our [C++] API and a 
major W3C spec(WXS) -- I think that's nice."

So that's my motivation; the capitalization of XMLGUI is rare, and a format 
would unliklely be designed like that. But you think that's wrong; e.g, what 
you mean is we should be consistent with XMLGUI, not with the general style 
of KDE. Right?

But since this now have turned into a style debate, it'll have to go.

<snip>
> Formal descriptions of XML vocabularies are only needed when
> interoperability with third party applications is the reason for using the
> XML. 

Again, re-read. I specifically left out vocabularies which are internal. That 
paper is here only for the reasons you mention. Read it.

Other than that, see my upcoming reply to Adriaan, since your comments are 
similar to his.


Cheers,

		Frans