> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> >><projectref name="A"> > >> >> <A:mailaddressset id="send-report-to"> > >> >> <address to="[EMAIL PROTECTED]" /> > >> >> </A:mailaddressset> > >> >></projectref> > >> > > > > > Here you are defining an id for 'A' within a pseudo-task, so the > > blank rule about forbidding this sort of thing may not be > > correct. > > Who said I wanted to forbid what? 8-) > > Datatypes shouldn't be treated different than properties, right? If I > can define properties via param, I must have a way to define arbitrary > data types and pass them to subbuilds or projectrefs as well IMHO. >
Well, the current rules would require <projectref> to allow for a <A:mailaddressset> element. But you cannot have it because is dynamically generated. I would seem that we need something like <param> that allows for any datatype element specification inside. Much like the <set-item> operation I think Peter was talking about. This kinds of issues is what makes me think we are making some funny distinctions between <properties> and <typedefs>. There seem to be some missing unifying concept for both. Maybe what was called <item>. Jose Alberto
