- From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:52:45 +0200
- To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
I know why p:pipe missing as a valid element from the first definition of p:input at 5.1.1 Document Inputs, e.g. this first usage is when p:input is used in a declaration versus an 'atomic step'. the context of the first usage is not all that clear and propose clarification. J
Received on Tuesday, 26 August 2008 18:53:20 UTC