- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:10:27 +0200
- To: "Jeni Tennison" <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 7/20/07, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote: > > > > 1. Why not allow AVTs in option/parameter values? This would, > > arguably, simplify the language. It would increase the value of the > > attribute syntax shortcut for option values and allow us to get rid > > of the distinction between @value and @select on p:parameter and > > p:option. (What is currently done with @select could be done with > > an AVT in @value.) > > I'm strongly in favour of having AVTs at some point. > > There is an argument for doing this now, because having AVTs would mean > there was no need for a select attribute. If we intend to introduce AVTs > at some point, that would leave us with a deprecated attribute. And > deprecated elements/attributes are a pain. Won't the deprecation of @select attribute become an asymetry with the rest of element that use @select ? Furthermore, I think that @select would become VERY interesting in the future when we potentially would allow more that just strings.... So, I agree AVT are nice, but I'm not in favor of making @select deprecated in any way Mohamed -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 9 52 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Friday, 20 July 2007 07:10:32 UTC