http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6311 Jim Melton <jim.melton@acm.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Jim Melton <jim.melton@acm.org> 2009-01-13 01:20:35 --- I, provisionally, disagree. In fact, it was just this consideration that caused the situation you reported in Bug 6310. I don't believe that a <windowVars> element should appear in a <windowStartCondition> or <windowEndCondition> element unless it has some content. Based on that philosophy, my initial design of the <windowVars> element required the "least optional" child, the <positionalVariableBinding> element. However, by accepting your proposed change for Bug 6310, we have introduced the situation in which an empty list of window variables has two representations, one with an empty <windowVars> element and one with no <windowVars> element. Instead of my immediately accepting the recommendation in this bug, I'd like more discussion of whether my original design was appropriate (meaning that a <windowVars> element should have a required child <positionalVariableBinding> element), or whether it's better to make the child <positionalVariableBinding> element optional in the <windowVars> element and then require the (possibly empty) <windowVars> child element in the <windowStartCondition> or <windowEndCondition> elements. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 01:20:44 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:25 UTC