Re: Tin Man Design Question 4 - to vote Jan. 9th?

[Carmelo Montanez <carmelo@nist.gov>]

I am ok with any limit this committee will want to impose on the length of
the purpose.  I am also very much in agreement with David that
there should be "no-new-lines" as this make for easier reporting.

Carmelo
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <David_Marston@lotus.com>
To: <xslt-conformance@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 3:15 PM
Subject: Tin Man Design Question 4 - to vote Jan. 9th?


> Here is one of the issues identified in my message titled
> "Test Case Markup & Cataloging, Tin Man edition" that I sent
> to this list on 12/1/2000:
> 4. What limits to impose on "Purpose" to make it a one-liner
> 
> DISCUSSION:
> The Tin Man proposal says
> <!ELEMENT Purpose ( #PCDATA ) >
>   <!-- Max 72 characters, no new-lines -->
> <!ELEMENT Elaboration ( #PCDATA ) >
> though I feel more strongly about the "no new-lines" part than
> the length limit. Elaboration deliberately has no limit. Those
> who saw NIST's display of the test catalog in HTML will know
> why we would want a terse Purpose statement. Carmelo showed us
> a table of case names, other data, and the one-liners.
> 
> After discussion, this can be voted as several separate items,
> like rules vs. guidelines, new-line rule/guideline, length
> rule/guideline.
> .................David Marston
> 
>