From: David H. <dav...@bl...> - 2004-09-11 20:56:12
|
Tim Hochberg wrote: > Oren Ben-Kiki wrote: >> On Saturday 11 September 2004 04:33, Tim Hochberg wrote: >>> One issue that just occured to me is how will you treat !null values >>> (not Null tags). It's a fairly common requirement to accept string or >>> Null. [...] >> --- >> foo: >> bar: >> label: ~ # null >> --- >> foo: >> bar: >> label: ! ~ # string >> --- >> foo: >> bar: >> label: text # string >> ... > > Also unpleasant. Null is what wants to be marked as different, not the > string '~'. How about getting rid of ~, always writing a null node as !!null (assuming the default prefix for !!), and having its content be the empty string? Then you would never have to implicitly type nulls. -- David Hopwood <dav...@bl...> |