OK, I guess I slipped on the intuitiveness of HTML tags -- I don't know where my mind was at that moment. Regardless, I prefer consistency and clarity whenever possible. I know you do too. Your clarified the issues and I am somewhat comfortable with the outcome. And, now I understand why "sql" was used, but not "xml". I still think that it would be nice if all of the libraries started with "jstl" so that they appeared related. Oh, well.
Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Shawn Bayern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 4:10 PM > To: Tag Libraries Users List > Subject: RE: JSTL tag prefix naming conventions? > > > So, sorry I didn't respond earlier; for some reason, the mailing list > didn't send me these messages until hours later. Thanks for all your > comments; I can't speak authoritatively for the entire expert > group, but > here are my own personal opinions. > > On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Steve Bang wrote: > > > 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. > > Overall, I'd certainly never argue for tags that are cryptic, but HTML > tags certainly use abbreviations, just for the sake of > brevity. There's > an <a> tag instead of <anchor>; <p> instead of <paragraph>; and <img> > instead of <image>. In fact, nearly all HTML tags are cryptic if you > don't like abbreviations. :-) > > Concerning analogies with Java, I'm not sure I agree. The > J2SE libraries > certainly use reasonably long names for classes, but > namespace prefixes > are more like packages, and the standard libraries all use > abbreviations: > java.io, java.util, java.lang. Like the J2SE libraries, we don't > abbreviate the tag (class) names: forEach, forTokens > (instead of 'f' or > 'ft'). > > At any rate, it looks (to me) like we're in good company. > > > 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? > > This definitely came up; it was debated at length in the context of > whether to provide a single JSTL tag library or multiple tag > libraries. > The rationale for the perceived inconsistency in the naming > is what Henri > said: simplicity to type. After all, 'core' or 'jstlcore' > are just as > opaque as 'c' without ANY context; given that JSTL is the > standard and is > expected to be used widely, we figured that > > <c:forEach> > > would be much easier to read and identify than > > <jstlcore:forEach> > > FMT could be called 'f', but it does take a slight back-seat > to the core > library in this regard. I'd expect many pages just to use > 'c'. The XML > tag library might have ideally been prefixed 'xml', but the > XML standard > itself rules that out :-), and we figured we'd promote the library by > giving it its own, one-letter abbreviation. > > Whatever we choose would be somewhat arbitrary, so we > ultimately opted to > ease the page author's burden of typing! > > -- > Shawn Bayern > Author, "JSP Standard Tag Library" http://www.jstlbook.com > (coming this summer from Manning Publications) > > > -- > 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]>
