>> Sorry, yes, I meant AttributeDesignator. -Anne
>
>Then, I am opposed to this modification. Why do you want it?
>To cut down on XML characters one has to type? %^D
>
>The type of the <*AttributeDesignator> construct would then be overloaded
>to represent a Bag or a singleton depending on this attribute. That would
>have typing issues with the <*Match> constructs as they take
><*AttributeDesignator>s that must have type Bag.
>
>Granted, that the type can be figured out by the looking at this
>attribute, but in effect it is really a different construct all together,
>i.e. one with the "*-one-and-only" function applied.
>
>This modification will not add any functionality. It is merely a
>convienience, and furthermore with typing issues.
>
>If we were to have it, it should be named differently and appropriately,
>especially since it will not be able to be applied within a <*Match>
>construct.
I'm convinced. I think cutting down on XML characters is
worthwhile if minimal additional complexity is involved. It
looks like the complexity is not minimal, however, so consider
this proposal dropped.
Thanks,
Anne
--
Anne H. Anderson Email:
Sun Microsystems Laboratories
1 Network Drive,UBUR02-311 Tel: 781/442-0928
Burlington, MA 01803-0902 USA Fax: 781/442-1692
