#680 <relation> Erroneously Omitted From att.typed

AMBER
closed-accepted
nobody
None
5(default)
2014-08-01
2014-07-30
Scott Vanderbilt
No

According to Guidelines 13.3.2.3 (Personal Relationships), <listRelation> and <relation> are purportedly both members of att.typed. However, only <listRelation> is. <relation> should be made a member of att.typed.

Discussion

  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2014-07-30

    This looks like a corrigible error to me. In olden times, @type was locally defined in cases where the Guidelines wanted to propose some specific set of values. This is no longer necessary, and in any case, the list of values proposed here is fairly unhelpful. Unless anyone objects I propose to fix this for the next release.

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2014-08-01

    Fixed at [r12953]

     

    Related

    Commit: [r12953]

  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2014-08-01

    • status: open --> closed-accepted