From: David P. <pr...@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? Thanks! -- David Priest pr...@sf... ICQ: 248533102 MSN: omg...@ho... |
From: Felix W. <Fel...@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. I'm sorry. > 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, For all. > 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 |