On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 10:05 +0300, Antti Kaijanmäki wrote: > ma, 2008-06-02 kello 13:18 +0100, Bastien Nocera kirjoitti: > > On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 15:12 +0300, Antti Kaijanmäki wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > <provider> > > > <name>Service Provider - CDMA</name> > > > <cdma /> > > > </provider> > > > <provider> > > > <name>Service Provider - GSM</name> > > > <gsm> > > > <apn>internet</apn> > > > </gsm> > > > </provider> > > > <provider> > > > <name>Service Provider - GSM prepaid</name> > > > <gsm> > > > <apn>prepaid.provider</apn> > > > </gsm> > > > </provider> > > > > I'd rather have: > > <provider type="gsm"> > > <name>Service Provider - GSM prepaid</name> > > <apn>prepaid.provider</apn> > > </provider> > > I see your point and this was my first idea also. But the problem with > this approach is that I can't validate this with a DTD. At least I > didn't find any way to state: > > 'if provider element has property "type" set as "gsm" the element must > contain child element "apn" ' > > But I can state: > > 'provider must have either "gsm", "cdma" or "phs" child element'
I also mentioned another option which you seem to have discounted, and can easily be used in a DTD. <provider> <gsm /> <name>Service Provider - GSM prepaid</name> <apn>prepaid.provider</apn> </provider> _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
