Eduard Witteveen wrote: > On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 11:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>- an attribute should be used. The notation <mm:field name="html(foo)" /> >>is queer and unnecessarily confusing. > > Till the time we have a alternative, i would say we have to update the > documentation with the 'html(fieldname)' sollution. I dont like it > either, but it makes us more clear we have to do _something_ about it..
I'm -1 in adding this to the documentation. If we add it to the documentation people will start using it, and then we will have to explain them that they have to change it if we have a better solution. If people keep reminding us about a missing feature because they can't find a documented solution it will be a better reminder that we have to fix it. If they are able to do it the bad way using html(), they will do so, and they will not remind us ;) If we add it to the documentation we should also add all the other functions like age(), gui(), ??? to the documentation. Jaco
