- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 05:57:05 -0700
- To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-ws-desc-eds@w3.org
Hi Arthur. * Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com> [2005-09-23 16:38-0400] > I don't like the idea of one component being treated differently, i.e. > with the others as dups. > > There is no assumption now that a property name is unique to a component, > e.g. {name} appears in several components. > > I think the safe way to handle this is to simply create a separate > <propdef> element for each occurence., e.g. > > <propdef comp="Binding">soap modules</propdef> > <propdef comp="Binding Operation">soap modules</propdef> > <propdup comp="Binding Message Reference">soap modules</propdef> > > This will result in the property name appearing 3 times in the text, but > at least the tables will work. I agree that it would be a good way to do it, but having "soap modules" appear 3 times in the spec will look peculiar, so I was looking for a mark-up specific way to deal with the problem. > I think the cleanest XML design is to allow a comma-separated list for > @comp, e.g. > > <propdef comp="Binding, Binding Operation, Binding Message Reference">soap > modules</propdef> > > but that will require more work on the stylesheets (to process the list). I thought to such a solution, but I think that it requires quite some rework of the stylesheet: - parsing and processing of the comma-separated list - what value of @comp to require/allow for prop? probably all of them, which will again required extra processing So I was proposing the propdup hack as a simple way to have the table be accurate without reworking all the mechanism. Cheers, Hugo -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2005 21:42:33 UTC