top-level? (was Re: A (hopefully comprehensive) versioning proposal) from Henry S. Thompson on 2009-10-18 (public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org from October 2009)

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:08:41 +0100
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5b7husg886.fsf_-_@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Norman Walsh writes:

> . . .

> Proposal 2: The version attribute is required on top-level
> p:pipeline, p:declare-step, and p:library elements.
>
> The current XProc specification defines the semantics of
> version "1.0".

I hope you mean 'document element'.  It seems . . . overkill to
require version attributes on each declare-step in a library, which
are, I think, what XSLT and XML Schema would call 'top-level'.

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]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFK2xNZkjnJixAXWBoRAsn0AKCBQwzGcrhM0YVmfe2rw27G+WgX5wCfcfJT
T+EoLNdCxGObskFs+Imw97g=
=GaBo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Sunday, 18 October 2009 13:09:14 UTC