I don't know if we should follow the W3C data type for this. While it is a
strictly correct
interpretation of "boolean", it is also common practice in the object world to
rely on nil as a
third boolean state... that of not knowing.
I have seen lots of places where a boolean was used to represent some choice,
and nil indicated that
the choice had not yet been made. If it is required that a given boolean field
always be either true
or false, that is a validation concern.
My .02...
Ben
inkling wrote:
> I noticed that to_xml on an ActiveRecord object that has a boolean
> attribute, but that boolean attribute is nil, will serialize out an
> xml entry of type boolean but without a value; it's just empty. This
> is even the accepted behavior that is tested with
> NilXmlSerializationTest's test_should_serialize_boolean.
>
> However, the w3c's xml schema spec on datatypes has something like
> this:
>
> "An instance of a datatype that is defined as boolean can have the
> following legal literals {true, false, 1, 0}."
>
> So should xml_serialization.rb force all booleans to true/false
> instead of allowing for the empty version of the field?
>
> If it should compute_value could just have a:
>
> elsif type == :boolean
> value == true
>
> in there?
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
