'Optional' vs 'Implied' in XSchema

[Ron Bourret]

> >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.

This is a good point.  On the naming ballot, the second list of possible names 
was meant to be non-mysterious names and for some reason I missed Implied.  I 
will change it there.

Simon -- does this go away anyway with the changes to the AttDef element 
proposed by Chris Maden?  I wasn't completely sure how those were being 
implemented.

-- Ron

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)