[Xcb] Should we use <bit> instead of <value>?

[Peter Harris]

Ian Osgood wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Peter Harris wrote:
> 
>> I was browsing the XML files when I noticed that some of them use  
>> <value> for
>> items that look like they should be <bit> instead.
>>
>> Is there a policy on this? Should this patch be applied?
> 
> Yes. The <bit> shortcut was introduced after many of these extensions  
> were already written. The patch looks mostly good to me, as long as  
> you are set up to test the extensions afterwards.

I didn't test the extensions, but I did read the generated .h files to
make sure they were equivalent (and the names didn't change).

>  (Naming: I prefer  
> not to include "Mask" in enumeration names, because it comes out  
> duplicated, for example  "XCB_EV_MASK_NO_EVENT_MASK". Don't worry  
> about compatibility; no one is using these extensions yet.)

I agree, but that's a different patch. (Actually, most of xcb/proto has
Mask in the enumeration name, if at all, and not in the enumeration
items. I presume that's what you meant.)

Peter Harris