Re: AW: AW: Mixed Content Model for Transform?

I agree with element-only, because of the following:

- Mixed allows in most cases much more than you actually want
   (mixed in XML can be controlled much less than in SGML)
- Mixed is typically used for document text; transforms have
   clearly defined parameters (if not, something is wrong).
- If there should be a case where using mixed for a transform
   is an alternative worth to consider, it's usually very easy
   to create a corresponding element-only model by adding one
   or a few more elements.


Regards,   Martin.


At 00/09/01 09:52 -0400, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote:
>My preference is for element only as well for Transforms. Does anyone 
>oppose this. Ed/John, is the mixed content for Transforms even relevant to 
>the types of transforms we'd expect people to write now?
>
>
>At 15:40 9/1/2000 +0200, Gregor Karlinger wrote:
>> > At 08:29 9/1/2000 +0200, Gregor Karlinger wrote:
>> > >Yes, I think it would be fine to have the same structure for all kind of
>> > >algorithms.
>> >
>> > But are you arguing for consistency or for mixed? I could make them all
>> > element only.
>>
>>I am arguing mainly for consistency. I personally would feel better with
>>element only; if somebody wants to have mixed content, he can define a
>>parameter element which allows this mixed content.
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Joseph Reagle Jr.
>W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
>IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
>