Tagging certain objects with contact, copyright, etc

[Dar Scott]

On Saturday, February 7, 2004, at 12:46 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:

> I shudder at the thought, but is it worthwhile to arrive at a set of
> conventions for naming common metadata properties?  It would likely be 
> a
> long and tedious discussion, but we might have greater 
> interoperability of
> components if we did.

I was looking to see if there was already something out there, some 
tradition the old-timers might know about.  Or maybe something somebody 
has already made up.

If what I use either matches common practice or common practice happens 
to follow what I do, I benefit for lots of reasons.  One might be that 
it increases the chance that the IDE might become smart along this line.


> I'm think of things like version, copyright, publication date, and for
> libraries a list of exposed commands and functions, possibly with
> descriptions like AppleScript.  As Rev grows there will be greater
> opportunities for commercial libraries, so having a common way for 
> other
> components to know what's there would allow a script to be locked yet 
> still
> be useful (a true black box).

There are lots of directions for libraries.  Issues might include named 
interfaces vs command list.  There is also the other direction 
concerning the required libraries.

That is one of the reasons my question was directed to a few simple 
things that would be common among objects.

Also, folks might join a bandwagon in a few simple tags but might 
flinch at an elaborate library description.

Even so, it might be possible to start out with a simple set, and then 
for libraries add a small set and then a more elaborate set.  Folks who 
want to participate may at any level.  Sets that turn out to have 
little use or are too much trouble will wither away.  Maybe it would be 
nice to refer to these by name, perhaps formally.

I got to this point because of my interest in custom controls.  The 
same kinds of issues may apply in common practice there.

Dar Scott