- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:15:35 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Norman Walsh writes:
> Yes, p:doc is a bad name. We came to that rather suddenly as I recall
> and never revisited it. I'd be happy with p:documentation and I could
> live with p:description, I think.
I like p:documentation
> I like p:document but if that's too similar to p:doc(umentation), then
> I guess I could live with p:uri.
How about p:source -- I think
<p:source href="....."/>
will sit well alongside p:inline, p:pipe and p:empty.
ht
- --
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)
iD8DBQFGbmQ3kjnJixAXWBoRAqB2AJ98nwMU/yBJg8c88GkULoDBs4RAzwCePFyU
qZ+d5jtJJXjjCdQ3tovQY1Q=
=3/NM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2007 09:15:54 UTC