On Friday 22 July 2005 20:45, L. David Baron wrote: > > Sure, there are alternatives for what the behavior should be. It could > be that the declaration should be considered an error (and thus be > ignored). > Okay. I guess I just believe it should be an error. An author setting a reset or increment twice in all likelyhood didn't mean to, whether it is the result of typo or of two conflicting scripts. I might not have the greatest experience in carefully reading standards, but I am shocked at how many minor and for everyday irrelevant corner-cases, that sneaked into the initial implementation of counters in Konqueror. Surely I am one to to blame, but I find it dangerous that the spec could be that misunderstandable. At this point though, I guess it is probably safer to leave the semantics of the spec in their current form and only improve the text. `AllanReceived on Friday, 22 July 2005 19:27:06 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:39 GMT