- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:28:13 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Norman Walsh wrote: > / ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say: > | 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 think that's two nods in favor of p:documentation and one for > p:description. Anyone else want to weigh in? I actually prefer p:documentation to p:description, but not if we still have p:document. p:annotation or p:information would be other possibilities. > |> 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. > > I like p:source better than some of the other possibilities. Jeni, > how does that sound to you? A bit confusing when we have <p:pipe step="..." source="..." />. We use 'source' as a generic term for something you can read documents from, so that might become confusing. What about p:resource? Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2007 18:28:14 UTC