- 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