[Bug 2619] Complexity of precedence rules for "scope" (or "selectors") from bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org on 2006-02-17 (public-i18n-its@w3.org from January to March 2006)

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 06:30:10 +0000
To: public-i18n-its@w3.org
Cc:
Message-Id: <E1F9z86-0004Vx-C6@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2619


fsasaki@w3.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  BugsThisDependsOn|                            |2620




------- Additional Comments From fsasaki@w3.org  2006-02-17 06:30 -------
We group discussed this.
The precedence rules have been simplified, as a reply to Bug 2620 (there are no
selectors in situ (or "local", in the new terminology) anymore. We have not
adopted the part of the proposal to have a rule saying "use
only dislocated" or "use only inline scope".
IMO (Felix), whether having such a rule makes sense, depends on the products we
define and on their specific conformance criteria.

Received on Friday, 17 February 2006 06:30:15 UTC