- From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:25:08 +0100
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: "XProc Dev" <xproc-dev@w3.org>
2008/11/11 Norman Walsh wrote: > 1. It's a configuration file if the local-name of the root element is > "xproc-config". This way, users can choose an > implementation-appropriate default namespace if they want, but my > implementation will still look inside it. > 2. My implementation will attempt to process any element in either > no-namespace or my namespace. If several implementations agree on the > name of a particular configuration property, then we can share the > same definition if it's in no-namespace. If it's in a namespace, but > not in my namespace, I just ignore it. I must admit I don't understand this use of non-namespaced elements. They can sound appealing at first to solve integration issues, but from experience, I think they are rarely the best choice. But maybe I missed something? Why don't just use a namespace for Calabash config files? Anyway, the options will be for their most pasrt implementation dedicated, won't they? Regards, -- Florent Georges http://www.fgeorges.org/
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 15:25:47 UTC