Re: header syntax.

Actually, since the original spec says that # someheader ######### is legal
and fine, it seems like a fine thing to support.  Why not?


On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:24 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 22 November 2012 02:28, Pablo Olmos de Aguilera C.
> <pablo@glatelier.org> wrote:
> > On 21 November 2012 23:17, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Le 21 nov. 2012 à 23:37, Joshua Kalis a écrit :
> >>> I think that the underline syntax is ugly and needless with '# header'
> or '# header #'.
> >>
> >> We do not have the choice.
> >>
> >> Babelmark2 shows that most of processors support the three syntaxes.
> >> http://bit.ly/Ug3yfj
> >
> > I added the "asymmetric" hash
> >
> > # header 1 #############
> >
> > http://bit.ly/UXMZa4
> >
> > That has to be supported too.
>
>
> No Pablo, it doesn't. We don't need to have a quirks mode, to faithfully
> follow
> prior bad art? We can get compliance with the majority on a subset of well
> defined syntax and leave the quirks to 'app-specific' profile.
>
> You do raise a good point with error recovery though. Never addressed
> AFAICT.
>
> Should we define that in the spec?
>
> regards
>
>
> --
> Dave Pawson
> XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
> Docbook FAQ.
> http://www.dpawson.co.uk
>
>


-- 
Shane P. McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.