Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> >I know that 'Implied' is what is used within DTDs, but personally I find > >'Optional' to be much more "to the point", I find 'Implied' quite > >"mysterious". > > Implied is very mysterious. It's been an open question throughout how closely > to stick to the spec's terminology, including its mysterious parts. If people > feel strongly about this, we should ponder change. I think at this point the > weight is more toward keeping the mysteries of the past alive, while > explaining them better, but I could be persuaded to change this. This is a good point. On the naming ballot, the second list of possible names was meant to be non-mysterious names and for some reason I missed Implied. I will change it there. Simon -- does this go away anyway with the changes to the AttDef element proposed by Chris Maden? I wasn't completely sure how those were being implemented. -- Ron xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
