- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 14:16:45 +0000
- To: Norm Tovey-Walsh <norm@saxonica.com>
- Cc: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, Bethan Tovey-Walsh <accounts@bethan.wales>, ixml <public-ixml@w3.org>
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 14:11, Norm Tovey-Walsh <norm@saxonica.com> wrote: > > > "I like "visible XML", but less enamoured of "vxml", since it makes it > > sound like it is some special version of XML. I think it should just > > be "XML" (and it's the only place where XML is involved, as output). > > I think we’re going to get into conversations surrounding what actually > gets serialized by the processor and what relationship it has to ixml > processing. Consider, for example, serializing the result as JSON or > serializing XML elaborated with a default namespace declaration. I think > implementations are going to support both of those features. A (hopefully brief) agenda item please? > > If we have a term for “the output of the ixml process” as distinct from > “the output of the processor”, those conversations might be easier. > > Conformance, I’m imagining, would be at the “visible XML” layer. <q>You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment</q> ;-) regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ.
Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2022 14:18:08 UTC