- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 02:04:57 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14439
--- Comment #4 from Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org> 2011-10-13 02:04:57 UTC ---
But, as Michael Kay points out, the "that is, ..." elaboration doesn't cover
this example. (Plus, it only says "should not".)
Similarly, the section title ("Multiple Modules with the same Module URI")
doesn't apply to this example.
Moreover, the "must be unique" statement doesn't supply an error code for cases
where it's violated.
So, while I agree that a processor has some justification for rejecting the
example, I think it would also be justified in allowing the example.
Presumably we should do some editing so that it's clearly one or the other. (I
don't much care which.) Or would we leave it up to the implementation?
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 02:05:00 UTC