Re: determining an xproc extension attributes

Jim,

Since I think you're paying attention to XProc at the moment :-), could
you consider this proposal and let us know what you think?

ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) writes:

> James Fuller writes:
>
>> I agree with both yours and Mohamed point ... and yes I have read
>> these sections a few times and understand how things are supposed to
>> work; I still think there is a contradiction between the 2 sections I
>> quoted.
>
> The WG proposes to change 'recognize' to 'implement' in section 3.8 --
> would that remove the contradiction you see?  If not, please suggest
> what would do so.
>
> Thanks,
>
> ht
> --
>        Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
>                          Half-time member of W3C Team
>       10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
>                 Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
>                        URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
> [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Do not seek to follow in the footsteps
http://nwalsh.com/            | of men of old; seek what they
                              | sought.--Matsuo Basho