[jdom-interest] TrAX feature strings

Philip Nelson panmanphil at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 17 07:33:31 PDT 2002

> >I think urns are the best choice.  It's clearly not a url and can be more
> >descriptive than a url.  But then I think urns are always the best choice
> >unless (if or when) the issue of what a namespace uri should point 
> >to is resolved.
> >
> These aren't namespace URIs, though. 

They sure do feel like that though, don't you think?  It's hard for me to
imagine why else you would use a uri to set an api feature.  I guess I have
never liked this approach.

> We can point them at anything we 
> feel like. A simple HTML document saying "This is a feature string 
> from the JDOMResult class that means Blah Blah Blah" is fully 
> adequate.

That would be a nice thing to do of course.  On the other hand the JDOM plan
for documenting code is to use javadoc.  If we do this for these feature
strings, then that simple statement is muddled.  Now if the javadoc was online
and the feature string pointed to the correct place with an html name reference?

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines

More information about the jdom-interest mailing list