RE: Long Tags Codes etc. again

[Todd Boyle <tboyle@rosehill.net>]

In the DOS era, many things having long names, also had a "shortname" in
the database so it could be printed in reports and handled on the screen.
I guess I'm suggesting an additional Representation Type, "shortname" which
a core component might have.  You might call this WAPname or SMSname.  :-)

I don't know whether shortnames could be generated in any systematic or
algorithmic way.  Shortnames obviously could not be unique. 

Hope this helps.  Probably it doesn't...
-Todd

At 08:17 AM 4/17/2001 -0400, CRAWFORD, Mark wrote: 
>>>>
Martin  thinks w should use the context of the previous tags to add
meaning.  He  argues we should use size=2>  size=2><SellerParty>
size=2><Name> size=2>  size=2>instead of <SellerPartyName> size=2>  I
would be curious to know how Martin thinks the lay reader will be able to
discern the relationship between <SellerParty> and <Name> unless he  refers
to the document schema.    size=2>  I  think we have gotten it right with
the core components naming conventions,  and wonder why we don't just adopt
both the naming conventions - and the CC  names developed in compliance
with those naming conventions, as our tag  methodology.      

martin.me.roberts@bt.com  had said

One way to get round this is to use the context of the    previous tags to
add meaning a
<SellerPartyName>   ...You get <SellerParty> <Name> 
    The amount of characters is the nearly the same but    the tags are
short.  Getting XML messages on one screen is almost impossible    as you
end up saying xml messages must be only 24-60 lines long as    traditionall
XML is shown with one element per line.