- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:49:57 -0400
- To: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 17:50:05 UTC
/ James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> was heard to say: | as a thought experiment, I think its valid to say that p:viewport | could be decomposed into two separate steps; | | p:xpath | | and | | p:xupdate | | was there any discussion about xupdate as an update type mechanism ? The XQuery Update Facility isn't a recommendation yet, and even if it was, I wouldn't even consider placing that much burden on implementors. I'm not surprised that p:viewport can be expressed as an XQuery Update task, but surely it's a small subset of that technology. | as an aside, I do see the name being a bit awkward...I would propose renaming | | p:viewport | | to | | p:view-port | | seems a bit clearer That doesn't make it any clearer to me. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | A man is not necessarily intelligent http://nwalsh.com/ | because he has plenty of ideas, any | more than he is a good general because | he has plenty of soldiers.-- Chamfort
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 17:50:05 UTC