Re: [docbook] Re: XInclude 1.1 Requirements

[David Cramer <david@thingbag.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/02/2012 12:41 PM, Norman Walsh wrote:
> Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes:
>> In the course of trying to work out how best to address
>> transclusion requirements for DocBook, some of us concluded that
>> we should try to push this feature further up the stack. We've
>> got concrete evidence of progress now:
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-xinclude-11-requirements-20120214/
>
>> 
> It would be very useful to get some review of these requirements. 
> Naturally, we want to know about any cases where you think the 
> proposal is inadequate, but in terms of judging interest it would
> be valuable to hear just that you read it, care, and think it
> sounds good.
> 
> Be seeing you, norm

I've read it and think it sounds good as far as I understand it. I
suspect the following blog entry also belongs in the References section:

http://norman.walsh.name/2011/10/03/transclusion

That blog entry describes what you would do with the changes to
xinclude proposed, correct?

David
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPefpJAAoJEMHeSXG7afUhsikIAJTECvbNGjfvC1Riy2/FwMHr
ln8Sx6P3xIFtlOOkG1NTx0uaE7UgsgUhZTN28fV+bBm6myMmt1Fg6SVVUwBud6nu
978W8xQWoxohWLsGpAXjFzVC88GTQ7A2ePs/NNo8+BLnMX7PW0fztBuZ2OzLuCh5
3Bbq9a7nZbJHiiFviMW1wj1FfB8r36BXQhR5Nbb5lMxrytwea9jkCndUkKDd97NW
GziGjZctp6axxHiKVGervSbNVHnzcHh4Q7eqRGx3F03COOVS+53MfRgKdg52Mj4B
wbRqmHXa6HbRIiflaXbSxx2xImCjWcwBcXA/2Fx7zGaHAn43nxkV9NyA7d9Nspk=
=dM6c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----