W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > March 2008

Re: subpipelines, Vnext and extension elements redux

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:27:18 +0000
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5beja6pqtl.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Hash: SHA1

As promised, I've tried to draft a proposed change to 2.1 and 4.7 wrt
all this.  I've actually produced this as a way-cut-down alternate
draft [1], as the formatting is sufficiently complex/important to need
to be seen in full to be comprehensible.  Please try to have a look
before tomorrow's call.

After all the discussion about non-standard compound steps, all I've
done to implement my preferred option (4) is _remove_ any way they
could sneak in.  If we feel more is necessary, a Note along the lines
of "It follows from the above that there is no provision for
backwards-compatible introduction of new compound step types." could
be added.


[1] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/alternate/
- -- 
 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]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2008 17:27:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:45 UTC