[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [] or ? for optional
Either [...] or (...)? works for me. Both are clear to me. A half line in the spec indicating your intended meaning of either syntax will make it sufficiently clear. -Mike -----Original Message----- From: James Clark [mailto:jjc@jclark.com] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 7:53 PM To: Murata Makoto; relax-ng@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [] or ? for optional --On 10 July 2001 09:38 +0900 Murata Makoto <mura034@attglobal.net> wrote: > James Clark wrote: > >> > - Isn't the type attribute optional for <value>? >> >> Yes. There's a "?" following the attribute value that is intended to >> indicate this. Is there some way I should fix the notation to make this >> clearer? > > Sorry, I looked over the "?". > > I prefer "[" and "]" probably in a big font. That would be more visually obvious, but I wonder how familiar the use of [] for optionality would be to our potential audience. Let's do a little poll. If you read this, please send a message to the list saying whether you are familiar with the use of [] for optionality and would guess that the square brackets in <value [type="NCName"]>string</value> indicate that the attribute is optional. Alternatively we could try to make it harder to miss the ? by adding parentheses <value (type="NCName")?>string</value> James ------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body to: relax-ng-request@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC