[sc34wg3] CTM draft dtd. 2007-09-09 - Templates
g.hopmans at mssm.nl
Tue Sep 25 10:15:40 EDT 2007
first of all, does anyone knows about the iso meeting in Leipzig? I may have
missed it but I haven't seen a thing about it.
On 9/25/07, Lars Heuer <heuer at semagia.com> wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> > I'm not sure why this should be a problem. Why can't the parser just
> > report an error when it either
> > 1) encounters an identifier that is identical to the name of an already
> > defined template, or
> > 2) encounters a template definition whose name has already been used
> > as an identifier?
> It could, but IMO this is too expensive and it would be bad if
> template names 'steal' topic identifiers. Remember, that templates can
> also be addressed by a QName which may steal possible topic
> identifiers (subject identifiers).
> All in all I don't like that feature for the following reasons:
> - Template names steal possible topic identifiers (local identifiers
> *and* subject identifiers)
> - Typos are not detected
> - Users cannot determinate from a topic fragment if an occurrence is
> created or a template is invoked:
> - If the template was defined 80 lines before the topic fragment,
> the user has to scroll up an down)
> - If someone sends a fragment to another person, that person cannot
> see if a template is invoked or an occurrence is created
> -> bad for debugging
> - Bad language design: Explicit is better than implicit
Ok, and can we also list the dis-advantages of the pre-Montreal syntax ?
(apart from the fact that is looks rather messy)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sc34wg3