Re: Option syntax

/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| Norm used comments to draw attention to the fact that the replace
| option was being set with the value attribute in one place and the
| select attribute in another. Using the wrong attribute name is very
| easy to do (especially when the value of the option is an XPath
| expression and you're using to writing 'select=' to set an XPath) but
| gives the wrong result without giving any kind of error.

Yes, this has come up before and we've talked about it a little bit
but never moved towards fixing it.

| 1. Setting the option to a static value must be done through an
| attribute on the step element; setting to a dynamic value must be done
| with the current <p:option> syntax:
[...]
| 2. Setting the option to a static value must be done through the
| content of the <p:option> element rather than a value attribute;
| setting to a dynamic value must be done with the current <p:option>
| syntax:
[...]
| 3. <p:option> only has a value attribute, and we use an attribute
| value template syntax to set it to a dynamic value:
[...]
| I'd be content with any of the above over the status quo (if forced to
| choose, I'd say 3 was my favourite, then 1, then 2).

I think I'd rank my choices as 2, status quo, 3, 1.

I don't feel strongly about 2 vs status quo. I've already expressed
reservations about introducing AVTs.

If we *did* introduce AVTs, then I think we'd have to revisit some of
our other decisions about when and were options are set. At least, I'd
want to.

Which, at this stage of the game, makes me that much more reluctant to
go there.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | We make out of the quarrel with others,
http://nwalsh.com/            | rhetoric, but out of the quarrel with
                              | ourselves, poetry.--W. B. Yeats