Re: Syntactic sugar for options: a failed experiment?

/ "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| Hum....
| It seems like summarizing this is that we end up allowing options
| declared as NCName to be shortcutted
|
| It seems, we will be better handled with namespaces
|
| <px:step option:name="toto" option:optname="blabla">

With respect, I think that would be worse. It still wouldn't allow the
user to specify an option that's already in a namespace. It would allow
the user to specify a value for options with names that clash with other
step attributes, but having to declare (and remember to use) a different
namespace for this purpose seems to outweigh any benefits of the
shortcut.

| ..if we still want to go the shortcut way
|
| I strongly disapprove going the way it has been adopted last telcon

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Reality is what refuses to go away when
http://nwalsh.com/            | I stop believing in it.--Philip K. Dick