> UNLESS could be replaced by a negation attribute or simply dropped
> and leave that up to the expression. Not sure if that's an improvement
> or not.
It's nice to be able to say what a string shouldn't be, when there's
no evaluator available: i.e. include *unless* these two strings
match. Making it a different attribute is basically just factoring
the XCond:type attribute; Occam says, make it a single attribute.
> But I'm pretty sure it be nice to have a fall-through
> default, i.e.
>
> <SELECT XCond:value="xx">
> <WHEN>...</WHEN>
> <WHEN>...</WHEN>
> <WHEN>...</WHEN>
> <OTHERWISE> if none of them works </OTHERWISE>
> </SELECT>
A good idea. Next draft (like, tomorrow).
> Also, I'd put the examples *first*, the formalism later -Tim
I'll make a hyperlink at the top.
-- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)