> So the idea is probably not going to fly for validatedValue, in which case I am again unsure of allowing it for other custom variables. It seems we have an inconsistency, one way or the other.

Mh, right. Seems like we goofed up on the spec level :/ As you say there is a glitch either way.

I still think I'd allow everything except the validated value to be printed out via _{foo}_, as it makes _${validatedValue}_ the only special case to remember (which you also can recognize when only editing a message file) and there may be a slight performance benefit by simply putting out values via `toString()` instead of feeding them through the EL engine.

> Good point. I was not quite happy with the name myself. Would addMessageAttribute be better. And do we still need to change the method if we are going to allow {foo} as well?

If we decide to allow _{foo}_ for everything except the validated value, the current name is good IMO because its perfectly inline with the spec wording. Otherwise `addMessageAttribute()` seems better, together with a note in the docs.

> I am surprised you already merged w/ these things still in the open. Did the discussion of last on the mailing list leave some impression on you?

Seems like it did, and I didn't even participate :)