[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: rbourret@dvs1.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de (Ron Bourret)
- To: xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
- Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 10:38:35 +0200
> >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@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
|
