- From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:34:18 -0000
- To: <public-bpwg@w3.org>
I wrote it the way it was - though it could be clearer, I agree, to take account of, say: <object> <div> <p>Here is an alternative <object> <div> <p>but that one did not work either <object> ... </object> </p> </div> </object> <object> Etc. </object> </p> </div> </object> > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Owen [mailto:srowen@google.com] > Sent: 24 January 2008 16:27 > To: Jo Rabin > Cc: Dominique Hazael-Massieux > Subject: Re: mobileOK spec unclear on nested objects parsing > > ISSUE-230: we need to come up with a resolution on this to propose. > > On Jan 18, 2008 10:19 AM, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote: > > For each object element that has no object element ancestor > > Request the object (ingoring the type attribute) > > Apply the Object Processing Rule > > > > Object Processing Rule > > > > If the content type of the retrieved object is not image/jpeg or > image/gif > > If it is empty, warn > > If it consists only of white space, FAIL > > For each of its descendant object elements that is not a > descendant of another descendant object element, apply the object > processing rule > > OK by me though I might state the last line as: > > For each direct child object element, apply the object processing rule. > > How about this then as the proposed change?
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 16:34:36 UTC