Subject: Re: [xsl] A paranoic XPath 2.0 question From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:09:59 GMT |
> If there is some point reised which requires voting, what is the > procedure? voting in W3C WG's (if it happens at all) is based on the WG membership not the editorship of the document. Obviously editors have editorial contrl over th etext but if there is anything contentious enough to require a vote it should go to the full WG (or I assume in this case to the full WGs) (This is from my experience being an editor on MathML, I'm not on XSL WG) David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] A paranoic XPath 2.0 ques, Miloslav Nic | Thread | [xsl] RE: XPath 2.0 (Backwards Comp, McKeever, Marty |
RE: [xsl] A paranoic XPath 2.0 ques, Miloslav Nic | Date | Re: [xsl] XPath 2.0 is not XPath 2., David Rosenborg |
Month |