Re: Implementation of Murray's proposal

On 12/19/06, Norman Walsh <> 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.

Blog (XML, Web apps, Open Source):

Received on Thursday, 21 December 2006 00:08:07 UTC