- From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 16:07:57 -0800
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
On 12/19/06, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote: > I decided to use the element names 'pipe', 'document', and 'inline' > to represent the three possible kinds of bindings. Norm, taking off your editor's hat for a second, since you are deep into this, what is your feeling? The alternate syntax certainly comes out as a good design. But it is also a heavier syntax. Is the current syntax so unclear that we need to always add nested elements? Do we need to create combined sequences of documents (say with part coming from another step and part inline) so badly that we need to make the syntax of every <p:input> and <p:output> heavier? I remained unconvinced that the answer to any of those two questions is a clear yes. Alex -- Blog (XML, Web apps, Open Source): http://www.orbeon.com/blog/
Received on Thursday, 21 December 2006 00:08:07 UTC