Re: 'Optional' vs 'Implied' in XSchema

Simon St.Laurent (SimonStL@classic.msn.com)
Tue, 30 Jun 98 22:29:15 UT

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Previous message: Tom Otvos: "Re: PCDATA vs CDATA"
Maybe in reply to: Jarle Stabell: "'Optional' vs 'Implied' in XSchema"

Jarle Starbell wrote:
>I think it is unecessary confusing to have both of the pairs
>('Required', 'Optional')
>and
>('Required', 'Implied')
>
>in the XSchema vocabulary.
>...
>I know that 'Implied' is what is used within DTDs, but personally I find
>'Optional' to be much more "to the point", I find 'Implied' quite
>"mysterious".

Implied is very mysterious. It's been an open question throughout how closely
to stick to the spec's terminology, including its mysterious parts. If people
feel strongly about this, we should ponder change. I think at this point the
weight is more toward keeping the mysteries of the past alive, while
explaining them better, but I could be persuaded to change this.

Opinions?

Simon St.Laurent
Dynamic HTML: A Primer / XML: A Primer / Cookies

Previous message: Tom Otvos: "Re: PCDATA vs CDATA"
Maybe in reply to: Jarle Stabell: "'Optional' vs 'Implied' in XSchema"