- From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:23:07 -0700
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
On 3/16/07, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote: > I also think users are going to find the extra level of indirection, > that of putting the namespace attribute on the pipeline-library as a > way of putting pipelines in a namespace, confusing. When we say we did > it so that step names wouldn't have to be QNames, and that we didn't > want them to be QNames because that was somehow more complicated than > making them NCNames, I think they're going to be...amused. +1 for going with QNames. (Which maybe shows my bias here in favor of how things are done in XSLT.) I can live with NCNames though. So Norm, don't feel that it is necessary to reopen this one unless you see us moving towards a consensus. Alex -- Orbeon Forms - Web 2.0 Forms for the Enterprise http://www.orbeon.com/
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2007 06:23:11 UTC