>>>>[a-z,A-Z,0-9,_] are the only valid characters in module names.
> Ok.... So can you actually cite a standard you are adopting here?
Not sure what you mean? I thought [a-z,A-Z,0-9,_] was fairly explicit.
> [a-zA-Z0-9_] is not sufficient. Using a standard of [source language
> id][separator][destination language id] is the only reasonable way I've
> thought of for naming glossaries in a consistent manner. That requires
> using [a-zA-Z0-9_\-] for the language ids plus one additional
> non-alphanumeric character to separate the ids.
I appreciate your input, but I don't feel there is a need to add
additional separators. Remember, these are unique module IDs not
functional operators. Your standard for naming glossaries sounds fine
to me. For example: chrisenzh would be fine for Chris' glossary from
English to Chinese.
If you would like to add meta information to the .conf file like:
KeyLang=en
EntryLang=zh
That's fine with me. No objections from me for adding more meta
information.
Hope this helps.
-Troy.
>
> We can adopt XML Name, confined to Latin-1, if you would like. That
> adds [:\.] to the options but requires that the first character be
> in [a-zA-Z_:].
>
> Alternately, we could add a safename() member to SWModule that takes the
> module name and returns a version where all characters outside of
> whatever you decide on are converted to characters within whatever you
> decide on.
>
> --Chris
>
