- From: Mark Baker <mark.baker@canada.sun.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:25:48 -0400
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@attlabs.att.com>, mmurata@trl.ibm.co.jp, www-html-editor@w3.org, dan@dankohn.com
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote: > > At 02:29 PM 7/26/00 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote: > >Forget I asked. What about the wording as I suggested it? > > This looks fine to me: (I haven't changed it, just got rid of the >) > -------------------------------- > An XML document labelled as text/xml or application/xml might contain > namespace declarations, stylesheet-linking PIs, schema information, > or other declarations that might be used to suggest how the document > is to be processed. For example, a document might have the XHTML > namespace and a reference to a CSS stylesheet. Such document might > be handled by applications that would use this information to dispatch > to the appropriate processing. > -------------------------------- > > 'Might' seems to address the current situation perfectly, adding the right > amount of contingency throughout. Yes, "might" is much better than my proposal. I like. MB
Received on Thursday, 27 July 2000 10:23:55 UTC