W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Renaming p:xslt ?

From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 14:07:05 +0200
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0705150507k5ecf46b7hd65e07c875848f17@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

I'm thinking that Alex is asking good question :

xmlschema : 1.0 ? 1.1 ? both ?
xslfo : 1.0 ? 1.1 ? both ?
xslt : 1.0 ? 1.1 ? 2.0 ? exslt ? all ?
p:store : xml 1.0 ? xml 1.1 ? both ?
p:http-request : http 1.0 ? http 1.1 ? both ?

Mohamed

On 5/15/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> / Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say:
> | Since we have an XSLT 2.0 step named "p:xslt2", maybe our XSLT 1.0 step
> | should
> | be named "p:xslt1".  IMHO, we're giving XSLT 1.0 more status than
> | XSLT 2.0 by not ranking the step name.  As time goes on, that might see
> | strange
> | to pipeline authors.
>
> I'm ambivalent, but I'm not going to argue against it. Should we look to
> the future and name our xquery component xquery1?
>
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
>
> --
> Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Unless one is a genius, it is best to
> http://nwalsh.com/            | aim at being intelligible.--Anthony Hope
>
>


-- 
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 Tuesday, 15 May 2007 12:16:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:51 GMT