• To: "Michael Good" <musicxml@g...>
• Subject: Re: Choosing a target name for a processing instruction
• From: "Peter Hunsberger" <peter.hunsberger@g...>
• Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:30:53 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=XuUdtu4LJQyDq0iGQE8J+llz0LSx9l/QrvAjEQZQ2U/NhQr13GDbte9D5eNc+8sQMC5S6kGdA3ms/mF3KAQwu+l7XY23t1GjJIr6VUNtlTYG58H+yi1pQQ+miWaEJ0C5T/autfAfEyuauGgV4g0RGuvCicXIgrJ9+D/0Vbb0vW8=
• In-reply-to: <b5ca83430604281240s21f2a567na2102c8c7ffc9f03@m...>
• References: <b5ca83430604281240s21f2a567na2102c8c7ffc9f03@m...>

>[ ...] in our case, we
> are targeting any MusicXML application that cares about this particular
> feature. Should we just use the name of the feature instead? If we do that,
> then matching the target name will convey all the necessary information, and
> there will be no extra PI data required.

I'd vote no; use a generic app name and add extra PI data.  That way,
if you come across yet another need for such a thing in 3 more weeks
(or whatever) you won't have to add another PI...

--
Peter Hunsberger

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Choosing a target name for a processing instruction
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>

• References:
  • Choosing a target name for a processing instruction
    • From: "Michael Good" <musicxml@g...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Choosing a target name for a processing instruction
• Next by Date: RE: Choosing a target name for a processing instruction
• Previous by thread: Re: Choosing a target name for a processing instruction
• Next by thread: RE: Choosing a target name for a processing instruction
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread