Re: [BLD] XML syntax for the slots

Harold,

Boley, Harold wrote:
> 
> on purpose.
>
> [...] For example, unlike the [argrument names] of named-argument UNITERMs,
> the [slot keys] of frames can be complex expressions.

Yes, I understand that. My question was more trivial than that :-)

Why, in an UNITERM, the argument's name is in a sub-element (<Name>), 
whereas the slot key is not?

Why not have, in an UNITERM:
   <slot rif:ordered="yes">
      unicodestring
      TERM
   </slot>

and in a Frame:
   <slot rif:ordered="yes">
      TERM
      TERM
   </slot>

A side question is: if we keep it as it is (that is, the argument names 
in UNITERMs are in <Name> sub-elements, do we still need the content of 
the UNITERM slots to be ordered? That is, do we still need the 
rif:ordered attribute to be "yes"?

Cheers,

Christian

Csma wrote:
> in an UNITERM:
>   <slot ordered="yes">
>      <Name>unicodestring1</Name>
>      filler1'
>   </slot>
> 
> and in a Frame:
>   <slot ordered="yes">
>      key1'
>      filler1'
>   </slot>
> 
> Is that on purpose, or is it just oversight?