Greetings, On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 03:35:20PM +0900, Michael Smith wrote: > ** If you have any interest at all in this issue, please take a minute > to think and respond, even if just briefly, about which of the > above choices you consider to be the best solution.
I'd like to see a <filecontents> element; however, we need to think about the precedent it would set. How many other literal content types are currently being accomodated by <literallayout>? And if we are willing to split off a <filecontents> element, why aren't we also splitting off elements for them? I'm having trouble thinking of other types right now (which is a good sign, but I'm suffering from a cold so it could just be weakened faculties ;) ). Anyone? If indeed there are no significant literal content types that wouldn't be covered by <screen>, <programlisting>, and a new <filecontents> element, then perhaps <literallayout> should be deprecated at the same time <filecontents> is added? I've always found the <literallayout> element to be a little shady in that its name seems to imply a presentational meaning as opposed to a descriptive one. ___________________________________ Kevin Yank Technical Business Director SitePoint.com - Master the Web! e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: www.sitepoint.com p: +61 3 9495 6622 ___________________________________
