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 <> 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:
--
Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail:
XML Technology Center | Phone: (650) 786-5498
Sun Microsystems Inc. |
