As a consequence, future specifications must not change the semantics of existing step types without changing their names. Two points. 1. Will W3C accept such a constraint on a future WG? If this WG remains, do you want to so constrain yourselves? How about 'should'? 2. Can I change the syntax... so long as the semantics remain the same? regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.ukReceived on Monday, 15 December 2008 18:20:49 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 15 December 2008 18:20:49 GMT