W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > May 2009

Re: Detecting unbound options

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:32:52 -0400
To: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <m2y6sio3i3.fsf@nwalsh.com>
James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> writes:
> I think adding relevent default values per step represents the 'least
> change' though if its really problematic then implentators can address
> in the short term; as for delaying the spec ... I think its time to
> let the 'cows make the paths' then let v+1 pave em over.

I hear you. I definitely don't want to delay the spec, but I am
concerned that this issue is a pretty critical language use problem.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The irrational is not necessarily
http://nwalsh.com/            | unreasonable.--Sir Lewis Namier

Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 17:33:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 May 2009 17:33:34 GMT