W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2001

Re: Has the semantics for Modules changed?

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:47:09 +0100
Message-ID: <3AB75F5D.9FF5B4EF@crf.canon.fr>
To: "Williams Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: frystyk@microsoft.com, "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@akamai.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
"Williams, Stuart" wrote:

> I think that there may be value in being able to 'tag' blocks with something
> that identifies their originator, however, I don't think that "Fig 2.1@AM"
> implies that.

Fig-2.1 shows examples of sub-conversations: b-c (block2), d-f (block3) and d-g
(block4).  Showing this on our introductory figure probably means
sub-conversations are important. If they are important (and I do think they
are), then we probably ought to be supporting them in XMLP Core. If we don't,
then maybe they should not appear on fig-2.1.

Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2001 08:48:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:12 UTC