- From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:11:41 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Procedurally, I like the idea of a separate WG Note because "namespace fixup" is likely to be a subject of much discussion going forward. I suspect that it may become its own REC eventually. At 10:47 AM 9/11/2007 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote: >Acting on the assumption that the text I proposed[1] is accepted as an >improvement, I have added it to the draft[2]. > >Furthermore, if I understand correctly[3], it would be an acceptable >compromise to add the detailed descriptions of what actions are >required on a step-by-step basis to achieve namespace well-formed >results as a non-normative appendix. > >If that's the case, I don't see why we can't proceed to Last Call and >address any informative changes in an appendix (or perhaps even a >separate WG Note) at some later date. > > Be seeing you, > norm > >[1] >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0108.html >[2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#namespace-fixup >[3] >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Sep/0111.html > >-- >Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | 'tis expressly against the law of arms: >http://nwalsh.com/ | 'tis as arrant a piece of knavery, mark > | you now, as can be offer't; in your > | conscience, now, is it not?--Fluellen, > | Henry V
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2007 15:16:40 UTC