Hi Julian, I think *two* things were proposed:
(1) Not having property.setValue(null) mean the same things as property.remove(). (2) Allowing "null" to be a value of a property. With respect to (1), I agree that this is confusing. Except for backwards compatibility, I would vote for making this an error (letting the impl throw an exception).
Confusing? Yes! At least we agree on one thing. :) With respect to (2), I disagree that this would be an improvement. It
would make the property data model incompatible with many other models.
Well, I would probably be ok with various means of how this would be handled, as long as the property was kept. But, since you see it as a single operation anyway, I don't think I can discuss this further with you. Julian said: "Somehow. I'm strongly in favor of closing that door again, that is, making XPath required again. We already see how this change affects the discussion: "if it's not compatible anyway, then let's re-start all design considerations from scratch". Yes, keeping xpath would be great! And I think that you are dramatizing here, not "all design considerations from scratch", just a handful that seem peculiar. Isn't that what a public review should involve? Best, Mark
