Re: Moving on. A basic para

On 21 November 2012 14:30, Ryan Freebern <rfreebern@unionstmedia.com> wrote:
> There are ill-defined areas of Gruber's spec that need clarification, which
> our spec should clarify, but hewing to the well-defined aspects seems like a
> good idea. Few would fault us for using his spec as a baseline, since it was
> the original. That said, if your aim is to develop a spec that is a baseline
> over many/most of the existing implementations, perhaps we need to survey
> the existing implementations of each feature before making a decision?
>
> Ryan

Agree Ryan. If you have time and bandwidth, please do.
My approach is a KISS one? I'm hoping we can identify the
corner cases and select the most obvious and common sense choices.

regards



-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 15:26:14 UTC