- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:07:27 +0100
- To: "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
hum... for p:inline, we can use other documentation strategies (comment, pi or foreign namespace) I think the need for documenting is stronger for NON-INLINE content than for inline Mohamed On 3/16/07, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote: > / Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say: > | I want them to not be empty for documentation purpose > > You want to be able to put documentation *inside* p:pipe and > p:document even though you absolutely can't put it inside p:inline? > > I don't feel strongly about it, but it seems to me that the most > consistent thing to do would be to forbid it in all three places. > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh > XML Standards Architect > Sun Microsystems, Inc. > > -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 8 72 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Friday, 16 March 2007 18:07:33 UTC