- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:07:32 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Norman Walsh writes:
> | Since we mandate a perticular order for p:viewport, I propose to do
> | the same for the other component
>
> Well. Ok. We used to have an order for all of them, then we were
> persuaded to allow the elements in any order, but I forgot to change
> viewport. When I proposed to allow viewport elements to appear in any
> order, I got pushback.
>
> I don't care what we do wrt to ordered or unordered children, but I
> think we should do it for *all* the steps uniformly.
Agreed. I retain an atavistic preference for fixed orders, but I
believe I'm in the minority, and can live with the alternative.
th
- --
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, 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)
iD8DBQFGZodkkjnJixAXWBoRAk0ZAJ0fQMKr0TEeX/0lzEn8/CbLydOvAwCfeRLw
www9m+Yz3uUkfaX0Wbsvo/4=
=jB0J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 10:07:51 UTC