I'll second that agreement. Case insensitive compares on keywords is a good
thing. However, I would not like to see anyone having to deal with JobState
vs. Jobstate as an element declaration (ie, everyone must always use
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald at sharplabs.com]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 9:45 AM
To: 'Zehler, Peter'; PWG Semantic Model WG (E-mail)
Subject: RE: SM> Case sensitivity
I agree with your positions on case sensitivity below.
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
From: Zehler, Peter [mailto:PZehler at crt.xerox.com]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 11:39 AM
To: PWG Semantic Model WG (E-mail)
Subject: SM> Case sensitivity
In the Semantic Model what is our position on case sensitivity? The
Semantic Model and its associated schema use Pascal casing for element names
to improve readability.
I assume that
1) Semantic elements (actions, elements, keywords) must differ in more than
case. That is, we will not define a mew semantic element such " Jobstate"
since "JobState" is already defined.
Do we mandate that how the equality of tokens (i.e. keywords) is handled in
the Semantic Model document?
2) I assume keywords are compared without regard to case in the model and
leave it to the mapping to determine what rules will be applied in that
particular mapping of the Semantic Model.
2a) Implementations are simplified in low end mappings and in XML if
case sensitive mapping is mandated.
2b) Server implementations would be more forgiving if they did case
Any objections to including the 2 statements above in the next SM release?
Xerox Architecture Center
Email: PZehler at crt.xerox.com
Voice: (585) 265-8755
FAX: (585) 265-8871
US Mail: Peter Zehler
800 Phillips Rd.
Webster NY, 14580-9701