[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: <optional> vs. <zeroOrOne>
I quite agree. <optional> is correct, and highly intuitive. > -----Original Message----- > From: David RR Webber [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 9:52 PM > To: Michael Fitzgerald; RNG List > Subject: RE: <optional> vs. <zeroOrOne> > > > Message text written by Michael Fitzgerald > > > Perhaps so but the mantras zero-or-one (?), zero-or-more (*), and > one-or-more (+) still ring in my head. I think most of us, even > James, have > lived with DTDs longer than TREX. > > Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case. > <<<<<<<<<< > > And for this reason I like <optional> as I've always hated > <zero-or-one> . > > Shakespear would have no truck with such nonsense. Optional is a > perfectly good word that everyone understands immediately. > > All other imposters need to be explained! > > <while> and <until> similarly go back to the beginning of COBOL! > > DW. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word > "unsubscribe" in the body to: relax-ng-request@lists.oasis-open.org >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC