While Java also supports meaningful naming, in this case the goal is to create tag libraries for non-programmers. So, names like "x" and "fmt" are not terribly clear. The HTML tags are not cryptic, and whenever possible, neither should JSP tags. I undestand that the HTML tags don't need a prefix, but we should keep in mind the intended audience and minimize confusion. If the standard JSP tags were <j:useBean>, <j:setProperty>, etc., it would be confusing -- would the "j" represent Java or JSP? And, if HTML tags had to have a prefix, would you find "h" a good prefix? I doubt it -- I'd much prefer "html" as a prefix. To avoid collisions and other confusion, I'm leaning toward having "jstl" at the beginning of the prefixes. Shawn, hasn't this issue been discussed among the expert group? Or, was this something no one ever thought about discussing?
Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Henri Yandell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 12:01 PM > To: Tag Libraries Users List > Subject: RE: JSTL tag prefix naming conventions? > > > However, they will become a de-facto standard. > > So it's the usual abbreviation cuz it's easy to type versus full word > because it's meaningful argument. Java philosophy supports > the latter, so > I will too. > > How about is JSTL peeps? Can we have more meaningful default > namespaces? > > On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Agrawal, Anuj (Anuj)** CTR ** wrote: > > > 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]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
