Re: XProc Editors Draft 2007-07-19: Section 3.1 Comments

/ Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| On 7/24/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
|> / Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
|> | And what about
|> |
|> | http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc
|> | http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc-step
|> | http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc-error
|>
|> Well, suppose we decide that XProc 2.0 is different enough from 1.0
|> that we want to consider changing the namespace. If we've parked
|> ourselves at /ns/ then we have to use /ns/xproc2 or something.
|
| or just use version="2.0"
| I won't fight for that but it's always a pity to use google to
| remember the year of a spec...

Yeah. I don't feel strongly about it either.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | As a general rule, the most successful
http://nwalsh.com/            | man in life is the man who has the best
                              | information.--Benjamin Disraeli