RE: parameters from Toman_Vojtech@emc.com on 2010-04-19 (public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org from April 2010)

From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 05:35:11 -0400
To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <997C307BEB90984EBE935699389EC41C0125F0A8@CORPUSMX70C.corp.emc.com>

> I'm game for changing my implementation if you are. I don't think
> there's any argument that either result should be a "pass", but for
> the sake of our limited harness, it'll be easier if we both do the
> same thing :-)

Sorry if it is just my poor English: are you suggesting we change the
p:parameters behavior in our implementations, or keep it as it is?

Regards,
Vojtech

Received on Monday, 19 April 2010 09:37:21 UTC