<tt><font size=2>Jelte wrote on 02/27/2009 02:45:28 PM:<br>
<br>
> (bikeshed, say hello to my little paintgun friend)<br>
> <br>
> Rick van Rein wrote:<br>
> > <br>
> > Perhaps rename <resign/> to <re-sign/> as people
tend to do in<br>
> > plain English to avoid confusion?<br>
> <br>
> I see that the last change made it <reSign>, which IMHO is both
extremely ugly<br>
> and inconsistent with other names.<br>
> <br>
> As I understand, it was chosen over <re-sign> because of worries
about xml<br>
> parsers not being able to parse dashes. It this an actual worrying
<br>
> point? While<br>
> i'm certainly not opposed to the correct use of <re-sign>, I
prefer <resign><br>
> over <reSign> if that is not an option.<br>
> <br>
> Oh and if so, xml just made another step towards my personal pit of<br>
> would-not-buy-again.<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Fwiw, it doesn't matter what you pick, as long as
it is machine readable. Some resemblance to human readable form is desirable
of course, but just pick one.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Roy</font></tt>