W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Remarks on W3C Editor's Draft 6 August 2007

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:41:42 +0100
Message-ID: <46CB31E6.7060709@jenitennison.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Norman Walsh wrote:
> / Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
> | On 8/16/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> |> / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
> |> | I think we should switch to using 'true'/'false' everywhere for option
> |> | values, since that's what boolean true/false get converted to as
> |> | strings. If we do that, it makes sense (to me) to switch to true/false
> |> | everywhere.
> |>
> |> We agreed to this on the call, but as I set out to implement it, it became
> |> pretty clear to me that using xsd:boolean was both easier to specify
> |> and consistent with other types, so I did that instead.
> |
> | But I fear we will have to choose our way for "inherited from
> | Serialisation Spec" options (especially standalone and
> | omit-declaration)
> 
> Bleh. Maybe those remain yes/no?

We could use true/false and say that they map on to yes/no as defined in 
the serialisation spec. Or allow both in this special case. I prefer 
either of these to *only* allowing yes/no.

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 18:42:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:54 GMT