- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:12:13 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2skblzk2a.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"Toman_Vojtech@emc.com" <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com> writes: > Good catch. Actually, on closer inspection, I wonder if the intent of 2.13 was to say that XProc version applies to p:pipeline, p:declare-step, or p:library and no where else. Do we really *need* or *want* to allow version mixing at a lower level than whole pipelines? > What about simply renaming p:xslt/@version to > p:xslt/@xslt-version? Hmph. We could. Anyone else have a preference for which we rename, assuming we don't limit XProc version to just whole pipelines (or libraries, of course). > Regarding the nested p:declare-step, I think it does inherit the > version > information (at least in our implementation, it does). Section 2.13 > currently says: > > "The version identified applies to the element on which the version > attribute appears and all of its descendants, unless or until another > version is explicitly identified." Right. I agree. We do reset some things at nested declare-step/pipeline boundries (variables and options aren't inherited for example) but I don't think that need or should apply to version. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | For the mental patient's family and http://nwalsh.com/ | society, mental illness is a 'problem'; | for the patient himself it is a | 'solution'.--Thomas Szasz
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 13:12:54 UTC