Roman Łapacz wrote:
update?
<nml-eth:label type="vlan"> <nml:parameter name="id">42</nml:parameter> </nml-eth:label>
<nml-eth:label type="mac"> <nml:parameter name="address">42</nml:parameter> </nml-eth:label>
Let me leave out the namespace discussion for a moment (I like to see namespaces to the type, but I'm not sure if that should go into the label element, the type attribute or type value) Can I summarise the proposals for labels as: 1. / 3. (the difference between 1 and 3 is the namespace) <nml:label type="c-vlan">42</nml:label> <nml:label type="wavelength" unit="nm" spacing="25GHz">1500</nml:label> 4. <nml:label> <nml:labeltype>c-vlan</nml:labeltype> <nml:value>42</nml:value> </nml-eth:label> <nml:label> <nml:labeltype>wavelength</nml:labeltype> <nml:unit>nm</nml:value> <nml:spacing>25GHz</nml:value> <nml:value>1500</nml:value> </nml-eth:label> 2. <nml:label> <nml:parameter name="type>c-vlan</nml:parameter> <nml:parameter name="value>42</nml:parameter> </nml-eth:label> <nml:label> <nml:parameter name="type">wavelength</nml:parameter> <nml:parameter name="unit">nm</nml:parameter> <nml:parameter name="spacing">25GHz</nml:parameter> <nml:parameter name="value">1500</nml:parameter> </nml-eth:label> To me, they are actually the same, as they probably map to the same UML structure in the NML schema (which is all I care about). So I have no preference for the above. Regards, Freek