- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:09:35 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Norman Walsh wrote: > / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say: > | 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. :-) I definitely don't want to get rid of <p:load> as a step. If you don't want to rename <p:document> to <p:load> (you haven't said why not) then could we at least call it something that *won't* get confused with <p:doc> (which is the only element that breaks the 'no abbreviations' rule), such as <p:file>, or rename <p:doc> to <p:description> or something. Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 18:09:40 UTC