On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 02:44:00PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > Could you expand on "named property" a bit; I'm not quite sure what > you're getting at - literally a property with name "named" (which > would be the same as regulator-id under just a different property > name), or ...? Just a property where we only care about a name (ie, that the property is present). > > Can't we use the right hand side of this? It appears to just be > > syntactic sugar without any current meaning. > The stuff to the right of @ is the "unit address" and must match the > value in the reg property. Using that was the first proposal I had > above (which I also didn't like as much) The stuff to the left of the @ is just noise right now, though - it has no meaning currently. It's filled in with "regulator" because we need to put something there AFAICT.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
