- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:41:42 +0100
- 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 UTC