From: David Priest <priest@sf...> - 2005-08-25 13:37:14
Someone appears to have had the bright idea of changing the "class"
attribute, used in so many of the XML tags, to "classes." That
little trick just broke my XLS:FO templates, thanks. Plus, it's ugly
and it isn't particularly standard: most XML I've seen uses "class"
even when there may be multiple classes assigned to that attribute.
When did this change, why did this change, for which elements has it
changed, and is it going to stay this way or will I be forever
diddling my XSL:FO to accommodate someone's idle whim?
David Priest priest@...
ICQ: 248533102 MSN: omgeleventyone@...
From: Felix Wiemann <Felix.W<iemann@gm...> - 2005-08-26 14:10:46
David Priest wrote:
> Someone appears to have had the bright idea of changing the "class"
> attribute, used in so many of the XML tags, to "classes."
That's because the classes are now internally stored as a list and not
as a string. What you're seeing in the XML output is the list joined
together with whitespace.
> That little trick just broke my XLS:FO templates, thanks.
> When did this change,
r3129 | felixwiemann | 2005-03-26 17:21:28 +0100 (Sat, 26 Mar 2005)
> why did this change,
It would have been counter-intuitive to keep the 'class' name while
changing the type. The name has changed to plural for 'id', 'name',
'dupname' and 'backref' as well ('ids', ...).
> for which elements has it changed,
> and is it going to stay this way
Well, I don't *expect* it to change.
For private mail please ensure that the header contains 'Felix Wiemann'.
"the number of contributors [...] is strongly and inversely correlated with the
number of hoops each project makes a contributing user go through." -- ESR