'Optional' vs 'Implied' in XSchema

[Simon St.Laurent]

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


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)