RE: Repost issue: missing accessors same as NILs? from Jacek Kopecky on 2002-01-24 (xml-dist-app@w3.org from January 2002)

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:31:22 +0100 (CET)
To: "'Rich Salz'" <rsalz@zolera.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201241528080.5743-100000@mail.idoox.com>

 Rich,
 after a few days relatively away from the issue, I now think
that "default value" would be an unfortunate choice of words,
whereas "unspecified value or possibly an application-specified
default value" would be much better.
 What do you think about that?
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/

Received on Thursday, 24 January 2002 09:31:25 UTC