On Tuesday 11 November 2003 10:01, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One oddity is that the implementation of elements is now
> > exposed.
>
> Yes, I see you've "fixed" the specific case by now, but it
The reason I fixed this is that in this c
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One oddity is that the implementation of elements is now
> exposed.
Yes, I see you've "fixed" the specific case by now, but it
remains a little strange. But then again it doesn't, as the version
which uses addTask is open for polymor
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 06 November 2003 10:02, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > well there is an undocumented attribute ant-type
>>
>> we really should document it.
> Yes...
>
> Note that w
On Thursday 06 November 2003 11:54, peter reilly wrote:
>
> However, I understand the problem of writing schemas, using xml editors and
> also the fact that it is a little strange ...
>
> So now I think that the nested elements should have the
> namespace of the enclosing element (except for typede
On Thursday 06 November 2003 10:02, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 05 November 2003 16:26, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> >> > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROT
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 November 2003 16:26, Dominique Devienne wrote:
>> > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > In beta1, the following worked:
>> > >
>> > >
peter reilly wrote:
There are some other issues, in ant 1.7 we hope to move
from staticly adding conditions, filters etc to using for
them. Using the new namespace rules would mean that this is obvious.
For example:
http://apache.org..."/>
succeeded!
of course
On Wednesday 05 November 2003 16:26, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In beta1, the following worked:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In beta2, I get an error to the effect
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This means that if I declare all my namespace prefixes at the top
> level like I do now, I'd have to prefix all nested elements of my
> tasks with the NS prefix?
All except for those that belong to the default namespace (the one
> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In beta1, the following worked:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In beta2, I get an error to the effect that "mytask"
> > does not support nested "mytype".
>
> Not yet fully decided - o
Just to clarify, you said that you think:
should be legal, as should:
but not:
as in beta2?
-Matt
--- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Matt Benson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In beta1, the following worked:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In beta1, the following worked:
>
>
>
>
>
> In beta2, I get an error to the effect that "mytask"
> does not support nested "mytype".
Not yet fully decided - one of the issues that is holding up the 1.6
release.
I'd say it should
12 matches
Mail list logo
