- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:25:45 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2014 13:26:23 UTC
Good morning, Jim (who's supposed to be on vacation) and I have been having a conversation in the comments on the requirement: 3.9 Consider dividing the specification. https://github.com/xproc/specification/issues/53 Jim appears to recall that we decided we wanted to do this, I recall that we're still waffling about it. Straw proposal, three REC track documents: XProc 2.0: An XML Pipeline Language XProc 2.0: Required Step Vocabulary XProc 2.0: Optional Step Vocabulary Objections? Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh Lead Engineer MarkLogic Corporation Phone: +1 512 761 6676 www.marklogic.com
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2014 13:26:23 UTC