Glen Ezkovich wrote: > Giacomo Pati wrote: > Sylvain Wallez wrote: > >> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > >> > >> <snip/> > >> > >>> I propose that we add the passthrough='true|[false]' attribute to > >>> make it possible for mounts not to necessarily halt processing if no > >>> match is found. > >>> The proposed element for it is the <mount> node, so that the base > >>> sitemap has the say on whether it wants to make the subsitemap > >>> completely responsible or not of the subsequent processing. The > >>> default behavior would be identical to what we have now. > >> > >> +1, but the "passthrough" name doesn't seem clear to me. > >> > >> Other names that come to mind, but aren't satisfying either are > >> "come-back", "delegate", "allow-return"... > > > > How about "final". > > To much like Java's final. > > maybe return-on-fail or return-no-match
+1 for the ability to return for subsequent processing. I like the explicit name "return-no-match". The default should ideally be true, but does that sit okay with back-compatibility? -- David Crossley
