- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:49:12 +0000 (UTC)
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010, David Bruant wrote: > > My comments refer to what is after the "the indicated part of the > document" definition > (http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/history.html#the-indicated-part-of-the-document) > > - There is a reference to the RFC3023 that may require a link to the > reference section Fixed. > - Step 4 of the algorithm begins with "If this step was not skipped". I > am probably kind of niggling here (and I am sorry if it is the case), > but, in my humble opinion, this beginning is not necessary. It's strictly unnecessary, but I want to be maximally unambiguous. (You'd be surprised how often people want to read between the lines.) > - Step 6 : while there is not "the", I think that "indicated part of the > document" should be a link to the definition of "the indicated part of > the document". Done. Thanks. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 26 January 2010 17:49:12 UTC