to, 2008-06-05 kello 10:52 +0100, Bastien Nocera kirjoitti:
> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 11:50 +0300, Antti Kaijanmäki wrote:
> <snip>
> > > I also mentioned another option which you seem to have discounted, and
> > > can easily be used in a DTD.
> > >
> > > <provider>
> > > <gsm />
> > > <name>Service Provider - GSM prepaid</name>
> > > <apn>prepaid.provider</apn>
> > > </provider>
> >
> > Your previous mail had "type" property also with this one and it had
> > the same problem as the first one had. That's why I didn't comment on
> > that.
>
> You can:
> "(gsm, name, apn)? | name"
>
> Would make sure you have an apn when you have a gsm tag.
and this would mean something like this:
<provider>
<gsm />
<name>foo</name>
<apn>foo.internet</apn>
</provider>
which is not far away from:
<provider>
<name>foo</name>
<gsm>
<apn>foo.internet</apn>
</gsm>
</provider>
> In all cases, you could also use a C program to validate your XML file,
> which would give you more options.
True, but our discussion has been, the way I see it, only about
semantics. Our opinions differ, but as I haven't seen any technical
arguments that make my proposal invalid, I am going to stick with it.
I truly appreciate your input and I hope this doesn't leave hard
feelings to anyone.
Thanks,
Antti
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digitaalisesti allekirjoitettu viestin osa