Re: DOCBOOK: Re: packagename proposal/RFE

["Matt G." <matt_g_ at hotmail dot com>]

> To add another dimension to the discussion, the word
> "package" in the field of software can also mean
> a package of software for distribution, such as an
> RPM package.  Authors who deal with packaging software
> but not APIs will perhaps misuse a <package> element.
Do you really think the semantics should be so specific?  I had assumed that 
Java semantics evolved from the fact that libraries were released and 
distributed as 'packages'.



> The advantage of the oo* names is that they are
> specific to their subfield.
Perhaps, but as far as I can tell, a Java 'package' has nothing to do with 
OO - it's just coincidence that Java happens to be an OO language.

I would attribute the more generic semantics to 'package', which will likely 
be the more common usage.  Java folks can constrain these more tightly.  Do 
you think there are any problematic constraints, in the content models of 
any DocBook elements, resulting from using the more general semantics?


Matt Gruenke


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com