- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 14:07:05 +0200
- 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 UTC