Re: xf:submission/@relevant proposal

I think it's a good idea to improve this.

I agree that "relevant='true'" is not descriptive, and confusing.

I think that we should keep "relevant='true|false'" to mean what it does  
now, and deprecate it.

I'm not sure about the word "prune", since it is not a widely-used word  
(and has an amusing second meaning).

I presume by 'blank' you mean 'make empty'.

So on reflection I like the idea of deprecating @relevant, and introducing  
@nonrelevant.

How about

     nonrelevant="keep|remove|empty"

with a default of
     'keep' if @serialization="none"
     'remove' otherwise.

(Although I would prefer a wording that says that this attribute only  
applies if @serialization is not "none", and the default value is "remove")

Steven


On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 22:38:09 +0100, Erik Bruchez <erik@bruchez.org> wrote:

> All,
>
> This attribute takes a boolean value. It is both:
>
> - confusing because it's hard to know which boolean value means to keep  
> non->relevant nodes or to prune them,
> - and limited because there is more you could do with non-relevant  
> nodes, >including blanking them.
>
> So I suggest moving from a boolean to using tokens:
>
> - `keep`: keep all non-relevant nodes
> - `blank`: keep non-relevant nodes but blank the value of non-relevant  
> >attributes and non-relevant leaf elements
> - `prune`: prune all non-relevant nodes
>
> (A case could be made to allow for the `relevant` MIP to optionally  
> blank >nodes during `recalculate` as well. But that could be considered  
> separately.)
>
> We could deprecate `false` and `true` on `relevant` and add the 3 tokens  
> >above to that attribute. The issue with this is that:
>
>    relevant="prune"
>
> might give the impression that this will prune relevant nodes (which  
> doesn't >make much sense).
>
> We could also introduce a new attribute, for example `nonrelevant`,  
> which >would take precedence over a deprecated `relevant` attribute:
>
>    nonrelevant="blank"
>
> Thoughts welcome.
>
> -Erik