Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 11:26:08PM +0200, Mikael Nystr?m wrote:
>> I therefore think that excluding the version information can result in a
>> mess.
> It shouldn't, of course, be excluded by default but should
> be excludable on demand. By, say, allowing regex matching
> for path definitions.
To be excludable on demand is probably a good solution, but I still think
that there is a benefit if it is possible to see which version of the
archetype the query was written for. Then is it possible to go back and
compare the query with the "native" archetype if something is unclear in the
query's semantics.
/Mikael
