- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 17:19:17 +0100 (CET)
- To: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
- cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Rich,
I think it can, but since the offset would be completely ignored
in case a member has an explicit position (and therefore every
member has an explicit position) I think we can go either way.
If we make it an error, the conforming implementations will
probably be required to check for it. On the other hand, if we
don't make it an error, but we ensure the offset is ignored,
that's one check less, I think.
I think I like my version a bit better, but making it an error
would be perfectly acceptable, so I'll let the rest of the group
decide. 8-)
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
http://www.systinet.com/
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Rich Salz wrote:
> I *really* like this, except for
> In the presence of both offset and position the position
> attribute has precedence over the offset attribute, they are not
> combined.
>
> Why can't that be an error?
> /r$
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2001 11:19:21 UTC