On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Joshua Slive wrote: > I understand why you want this, but I'm not sure if it is a good idea. > Won't it look awfully confusing to have a "directive in a directive". I'd > like to keep the <default> simple and consistent so that the data can easily > be reused.
It's probably just as confusing to have <default>'s that aren't really defaults. > At the moment, I'm leaning towards saying that we should only allow a simple > <default>, and that anything more complicated we just leave to be explained > in <usage>. Anyone have other opinions/suggestions. Since there are only a couple of documents that use this, how about using; <default>See description</default>? Or something to that effect. -- .---------------------. | Patrik Grip-Jansson | | Ringen 4B | .--------------------. | 78444 Borl�nge .--'----' http://gnulix.com/ `---------. | Sweden | All views and opinions are my own, | `------------------| PH:+46(0)24382823 PW:+46(0)707354360 | `--------------------------------------' --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
