Re: determining an xproc extension attributes

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> Jim,
>
> Since I think you're paying attention to XProc at the moment :-), could
> you consider this proposal and let us know what you think?

yes, I been away for a few weeks, yes this resolves my concerns.

regards, Jim Fuller

>
> ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) writes:
>
>> James Fuller writes:
>>
>>> I agree with both yours and Mohamed point ... and yes I have read
>>> these sections a few times and understand how things are supposed to
>>> work; I still think there is a contradiction between the 2 sections I
>>> quoted.
>>
>> The WG proposes to change 'recognize' to 'implement' in section 3.8 --
>> would that remove the contradiction you see?  If not, please suggest
>> what would do so.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> ht
>> --
>>        Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
>>                          Half-time member of W3C Team
>>       10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
>>                 Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
>>                        URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
>> [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
>
>                                        Be seeing you,
>                                          norm
>
> --
> Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Do not seek to follow in the footsteps
> http://nwalsh.com/            | of men of old; seek what they
>                              | sought.--Matsuo Basho
>

Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2008 13:00:41 UTC