- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:28:14 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 17:28:30 UTC
/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say: | Please could we consider the following renaming: | | 1. From <p:journal> to <p:log> because: | | (a) logging is a more familiar concept | (b) 'log' is shorter than 'journal' You're the second person to suggest it. I'm fine with that. | 2. From <p:document> to <p:load> because: | | (a) confusion with <p:doc> | (b) in a future version we might want to allow nested steps within | <p:input>; <p:document> does the same as the <p:load> step, so they | should be called the same thing Only if we get rid of p:load as a step. :-) Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Men do not quit playing because they http://nwalsh.com/ | grow old; they grow old because they | quit playing.--Oliver Wendell Holmes
Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 17:28:30 UTC