Closed MarAlder closed 3 years ago
I prefer solution 3. The 'delta' in XPath length achieved due to using abbreviations does not seem too large (saving a couple of characters compared to an already relatively long xpath). I do prefer the 'as expressive as possible' motto here.
Although I prefer shorter names I vote for the proposal which causes a minimum of necessary changes in the released schema V3.2. This will reduce the impact on already existing tools.
closed by #716
Problem
Due to the length of the word
Requirements
, we have chosen the abbreviationReqs
when revising theperformanceRequirements
for CPACS 3.3. This may result in long XPath strings. However, it was noted that this is inconsistent with other node names where we write outDefinitions
and do not abbreviate toDefs
.Proposals
Definitions
(resp.Definition
) asDefs
(resp.Def
).Requirements
is a bit longer thanDefinitions
and then sometimes use abbreviations and sometimes not.I prefer solution 3. What do you all think?