- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:48:32 +0000
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Norman Walsh writes:
> I think that's where we wound up back when we decided to take
> pfx:other-compound-step out of 4.7,
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xproc-20070706/#p.other
A primary motivation for my lengthy re-analysis was because it
re-surfaced in the alternate draft, and is still there today [1]:
"The presence of other compound steps is implementation-defined;
XProc provides no standard mechanism for defining them or describing
what they can contain."
> | Phew!
> |
> | _If_ we accept this analysis and its conclusion, I think I know what
> | 2.1 and 4.7 should look like . . .
See next message.
[1] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#p.atomic
- --
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFH4TXQkjnJixAXWBoRAiU/AJ9g/dR8Tt4vLutVQcHDHOx1eAJquACcDoiW
81uzdcRsQ9P68SWBLhKBJls=
=PE5S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2008 15:49:06 UTC