- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:14:50 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23329
Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> ---
In looking at this none of us were enamoured of the 2.0 specification, but
decided that the simplest extension of compatible behaviour was to say that we
always treat a union pattern as defining multiple template rules, and we treat
the "declaration order" of these rules (which affects their ranking during
conflict resolution and next-match) as being the order of branches of the
union.
We should note also that this splitting applies ONLY if there is no explicit
priority attribute.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 16:14:51 UTC