Alternate editor's draft of proposed CR draft (posted to web)

I don't think it's intrinsically wrong that that our spec uses
"binding" for about three or four different things, but I do think it
invites confusion.

1. Connections between inputs and outputs
2. Variable and option bindings
3. Namespace bindings
4. Parameter bindings (Maybe; we never use the phrase, but it could
   reasonably be inferred as a parallel to variable and option
   bindings.)

After some discussion and thought, I came to the conclusion that
there's no good alternative for "variable binding". I also came to the
conclusion (perhaps erroneously) that variable and namespace bindings
are pretty distinct. That just left connections. We call connections
"bindings" and speak of ports being "bound", but what if we just
called them "connections" and spoke of them as being "connected".

I gave it a try and I think it works. What do you think?

  http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/alternate/

(The diff also works.)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

P.S. I also emailed the HTML files, but the attachments were awfully
large so I'm posting it as well.

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | A life, admirable at first sight, may
http://nwalsh.com/            | have cost so much in imposed
                              | liabilities, chores and self-abasement,
                              | that, brilliant though it appears, it
                              | cannot be considered other than a
                              | failure. Another, which seems to have
                              | misfired, is in reality a triumphant
                              | success, because it has cost so
                              | little.--Henry De Montherlant