Re: Configuration options

"Florent Georges" <> writes:

> 2008/11/13 mozer wrote:
>> Instead of non-namespace may I proposed to use
>> "" which seem neutral to me at least
>   I didn't check the proposed schema very carefully, but I guess some
> config options would be Calabash-specific.  I can imagine that some of
> the configuration could be defined at an implementation-independent
> level, and maybe EXProc would be great for that (and I do think that
> would be great,) but not for all the possible config options of a
> processor.

Yes. I interpreted Mohamed's comment as being that instead of using no
namespace for the general ones, we should use a namespace from

That would work too.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <> | To create a little flower is the labour            | of ages.-- Blake

Received on Thursday, 13 November 2008 19:48:26 UTC