- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:59:58 +0100
- To: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
- Cc: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Voytech writes:
> Interesting idea. But what about Vnext pipelines without the p:switch
> directives? As far as I understand it, p:switch would be a nice tool to
> ensure interoperability between between Vlast and Vnext processors. But
> what if I don't (because I never thought about it, or because I am lazy)
> use p:switch and pass my Vnext pipeline to a Vlast processor? Then we
> still have the basic problem we are trying to address here (unknown or
> different signatures of steps), right?
Same answer as if, under the _status quo_ proposal, you are too lazy
to include an import of the new signatures -- if the use of any Vnext
steps contradicts their Vthis signature, you lose.
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]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFK1HnOkjnJixAXWBoRApJwAJwJmbRgmoIsLkTtsej/WFlHcCkFlQCfeoKg
1rKxKKqU10AjD+HGCA2XRg0=
=UMA4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 13:00:31 UTC