- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:41:32 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5170 ------- Comment #2 from mike@saxonica.com 2007-10-09 22:41 ------- I'm inclined to agree with Michael Rys. One could argue that the "M" doesn't capture the fact that this case is slightly different from any other in the table, but the table is only a summary, and the detailed rules are clear in the text. In fact the situation for NOTATION is explained in the very sentence after the meaning of "M" in the table is stated, suggesting possibly that the author of the table was aware that "M" didn't fully cover the situation. I think we need stronger justification than this to make changes: there must be a plausible case that the specification does not make it clear what behaviour is expected. Michael Kay (personal response)
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2007 22:41:39 UTC