Re: Dependency relations

> I've researched information about that in the archive, and found
> out the exact moment in which the current scheme was suggested. It
> was a message on 05-Dec-2003. The only answer recieved for the
> propose was from Daniel Veillard, which suggested something close
> to what I presented above. So, I'd like to know if there's still
> time to adapt the current scheme for the presented syntax.

I'm open to the change provided there are no objections. I can modify
all the code to make the change fairly trivially and since I don't think
anyone is using this yet I don't think we'd break running code, yet.


> Another interesting point: since we're using a text file format,
> is there any special reason for using "GE" and "LT" instead of
> ">=" and "<"?

well, as it's xml you'd have to use the entity replacements for those
which is less clear to most people.

-sv