If I redefined the prefixes, then when my customers or I buy Shawn's book (or any others), they'd have to reinterprete every description and example to map the new prefix names to the default ones. And, likewise, it would complicate any newgroup or mailing list discussions. So, a solution to this issue is pretty much now or never. Instead, the current prefixes come across to me as having been thrown together, and not well thought out.
Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Agrawal, Anuj (Anuj)** CTR ** [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 11:53 AM > To: 'Tag Libraries Users List' > Subject: RE: JSTL tag prefix naming conventions? > > > Aren't prefixes defined by the developer of the application > using the the > JSTL tags? > > The prefixes in the documentation are merely suggestions, you > don't HAVE to > follow that. > > > 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. > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
