[Standards] <option/> vs. <value/> in sequence

Brett Zamir brettz9 at yahoo.com
Sun Nov 30 20:41:27 UTC 2008

Brett Zamir wrote:
> Ralph Meijer wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 07:26:53PM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> [..]
>>>> The Data Forms schema for 'field' would indicate that <value/> instances
>>>> must come before any <option/> instances...
>>> Ah, I see. I'll look into fixing that tomorrow.
>> Did we really want to mandate a specific order? That doesn't seem
>> necessary to me.
> Even if you don't mandate a specific order, the Data Forms schema 
> still needs to be fixed, since by using <xs:sequence>, it is 
> indicating that <value/> comes before <option/>. I believe you will 
> need to use <xs:all> here in some manner if you want to allow any order...
One further issue I think needs to be addressed is for cases where no 
options are present in a list-single or list-multi field. For example, 
if there are options relating to roster groups, but the user has no 
roster groups, the server-side implementation might wish to indicate 
that such an option exists, but not populate with any <option/> 
children. So, I think the discussion ought to also specify what to allow 
in such cases--is it ok for list-multi and list-single to have no 
<option/> children (but only if no options exist)?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20081130/bec62bba/attachment.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list