[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [] or ? for optional
While [] is perfectly clear for me, I think that in this context (that is, a non-Unix context) ()? is more appropriate James Clark wrote: > > --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 -- Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM XML Technology Center | Phone: (650) 786-5498 Sun Microsystems Inc. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC