- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 22:06:52 +0200
- To: "Jeni Tennison" <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 5/22/07, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote: > > Innovimax SARL wrote: > > Ok let's be extreme ! > > > > I would go for "exactly one" for "no" and "zero or more" for "yes" > > If it turns otherwise, then I think sequence=yes/no is useless > > That's what I thought it was, but the wording we have at the moment > suggests otherwise. > > The reason I asked about this is precisely the situation where you want > to supply an optional document: it seems weird that to do this you have > to define the input as a sequence. > Do you have any use case in mind ? If it is the case, I would go *in the step declaration for required=yes/no* better than allowing an empty sequence as input... Mohamed -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 8 72 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2007 20:06:57 UTC