Mike Shapiro wrote: > That's the right one. Here is #4 again with escape sequences:
Thanks, Mike. > > 4. It isn't clear whether <grouping> and <hidden> are > complementary > or conflicting attributes. Assume I have property groups G1, G2, ... GN. > If I have a set of <grouping> elements which name one or more properties > from G1 .. GN, does this imply that other properties are <hidden>? > > In other words, it seems like there are two models: one says that every > group of type 'application' is to shown except for <hidden> members. > The other model says that the explicit layout is controlled by > <grouping> > My question is whether we want to support both and whether both can be > present simultaneously. Personally I feel that the <grouping> model is > much more sensible, and if someone is going to take the time to set up > these templates they should just do that. And therefore I would get > rid of <hidden> entirely -- i.e. everything is visible unless you > group. > But other choices are possible. In any case, this should be clarified. Grouping is left out of this phase of the project. It seems like it's quickly moving beyond the service metadata, and into trying to dictate details of presentation. And as such, it seems like a slightly half-hearted attempt to do so. Thus, I'm trying to lean towards keeping the metadata pieces of templates that can be useful generally and have reasonably clear usage models for the service author. I agree that the two models are at odds, and would expect that if it eventually turned out to be useful to do this type of presentation prescription in templates that the prescription would override use of basic metadata. liane
