> > > - The options schema uses a different modeling approach than all the
> > > It's not that all the others are consistent but this one seems to be
> > > introducing yet another way to model options, i.e. all as attributes of
> > > element. Maybe we should make it consistent with at least one of the other
> > > option schemas.
> > I took this one because it's very compact. So, how should it be done. With
> > Jsoniq :-)? Or XML module style:
> > <opt:options>
> > <opt:enable component="function" />
> > <opt:enable component="index" />
> > </opt:options>
> I would do it the way the schema-tools-options or archive schemas do it (e.g.
> <opt:function>true</opt:function>). Alternatively, it could be done similar to
> serialization options (e.g. <opt:function value="true"/>).
Your team Zorba Coders is subscribed to branch lp:zorba.
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~zorba-coders
Post to : email@example.com
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~zorba-coders
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp