- From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:37:36 -0500
- To: "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org
OK I see, sounds like a good proposal. There is still quite the open question of what we do with these changes -- I assume that anything except editorial and clarifications has to be saved for the next revision. On Jan 24, 2008 11:34 AM, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote: > > > 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 16:37:51 UTC