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

Re: subpipelines, Vnext and extension elements redux

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:08:58 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m27ifyo7jp.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say:
| 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.

It doesn't appear that much different to me, though maybe I can no
longer see the forest for all the damn trees. I do find the repeated,
essentially identical, tableaux more confusing rather than less,

| 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.

Hmm. I'll look again tomorrow morning, I'm getting EBRAINFULL errors,
I think.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Puritanism--The haunting fear that
http://nwalsh.com/            | someone, somewhere may be happy.--H.L.
                              | Mencken

Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2008 19:09:36 UTC

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