How were the names for the JSTL tag library prefixes chosen? I think that the naming could be more consistent and/or meaningful. For example, instead of the current ones, how about these alternatives:
c --> core x --> xml fmt --> format sql --> sql But, even this isn't clear that the libraries are related. So, perhaps instead they should be: jstlc or jstlcore jstlx or jstlxml jstlf or jstlformat jstls or jstlsql Given that "c" or "x" by themselves are not very unique and fail to convey anything about what they do (except to those who already know), it seems that these prefixes should be more meaningful. If there's an "sql" prefix, then why isn't there an "xml" prefix (instead of "x"? It seems odd that there is no consistency in naming. If they were x,c,f, and s, they would at least be consistent. And, xml,core,format, and sql would be more consistent and clearer as to their purpose. But, these alternatives don't show that they're related in any way. So, would jstlcore,jstlxml,jstlformat, and jstsql be the best? If this is going to be a widely adopted tag library, I think we need better prefix names. And, if the possibility exists that additional tag libraries are added, then perhaps a more consistent naming convention should be picked now. Steve -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
