- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:36:05 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Norman Walsh writes:
> With that change, I think we can simply say:
>
> If a step specifies an @xpath-version, then that is the version that
> it uses. If it does not specify a version, but a version is
> specified on one of its ancestors, the nearest ancestor version
> specified is the version that it uses. If no version is specified
> on the step or among its ancestors, then its XPath version is
> implementation-defined.
>
> I think it's ok if the implementation makes that decision dynamically.
> So if an <p:pipeline xpath-version="1.0"> imports a library, it can
> elect to make implementation-defined @xpath-version of the steps in
> that library "1.0". If the same implementation imports that library
> into a <p:pipeline xpath-version="2.0">, it can make it 2.0.
>
> Thoughts? (If we can come to closure on this quickly, I'd like to get
> it into the 1 May draft, so please do reply.)
I'm happy with this proposal. I think you should include your
"It's OK" paragraph as a Note in the spec.
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)
iD8DBQFIEcImkjnJixAXWBoRArPuAJ9iGU9GtuqFSJoSiSuQ481CUpBJwACeJgP+
xeHHTfae4eEu27+QpN4ZDOA=
=DnXt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 25 April 2008 11:36:45 UTC