- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 07:13:17 +0100
- To: "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Ok I fear it is too early for such a simplification We have not for the moment a clear story on the naming of the pipeline so for this one, I won't go that way for the moment For the other, I want to be sure that in case of error handling, which we haven't looked at it carefully yet, we won't mandate the presence of identifiers.... So I'm inclined to say OK, but let's wait to see if we don't have narrow case that would force us to go back on this later Mohamed On 3/22/07, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote: > / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say: > | Norman Walsh wrote: > |> Now that we have a defaulting story, do we really want to require > |> names on all our steps? > | > | No. They should be optional. > > I agree. > > Anyone opposed? > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh > XML Standards Architect > Sun Microsystems, Inc. > > -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 8 72 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Friday, 23 March 2007 06:13:25 UTC