> 4. We have an open issue on giving different names to the grammar-level
> include and pattern-level include elements, which we might want to
consider
> at this time. I would suggest leaving the pattern-level include as
> "include", since it is close to a pure syntactic include, and renaming the
> grammar-level include to "integrate". Other suggestions for renaming are
> welcome; I think this proposal really needs the grammar-level include and
> pattern-level include to have different names. Another possibility would
be
> "incorporate".
After thinking about this some more, I feel a bit uncomfortable about
renaming the grammar-level include. The grammar-level include is probably
used more frequently than the pattern-level include; also the include
elements in XSLT, RELAX and XML Schema are more similar to the grammar-level
include than the pattern-level include. This suggests that we should leave
the grammar-level include as include and instead rename the pattern-level
include.
Another way to think of the pattern-level include is that it is similar to
ref. But whereas ref is referencing a pattern defined internally by a
grammar, the pattern-level include is referencing a pattern defined
externally by the Web. On this view a name like externalRef would be
logical.
James
