Re: New draft: 13-Mar-2001

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

/ Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com> was heard to say:
| At 15:24 2001 03 19 +0000, Tony Coates wrote:
[...]
| >I can't remember now ...").  It would be much easier to understand
| >the document as it stands now if there was a "prefer" attribute
| >with values "public" or "system".  Can we discuss this at today's
| >meeting?
| 
| I might be willing to consider this, but I do remember spending lots
| of time on this issue when we first wrote this up, and it isn't as
| simple as you might think.
[...]
| I guess I could go either way, as long as the description of
| things is clear.  I'm interested to hear what the editor of
| the spec thinks.

I think Tony has a point, the attribute name 'override' isn't very
descriptive. OTOH, as Paul suggests, it's not immediately obvious how
to convey the required semantic in such a way that 'prefer' is
appropriately descriptive.

I'll make it an issue so we don't forget about it...

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

P.S. I think 'override=yes/no' is not nearly as confusing as 'namecase
general yes/no' :-)

-- 
Norman.Walsh@East.Sun.COM    | Sites disappear; others are created.
XML Standards Engineer       | That nasty little railway station,
Technology Development Group | devoid of taste and style, becomes an
Sun Microsystems, Inc.       | element of beauty in the landscape which
                             | first made it ugly.--R\'emy De Gourmont