- From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 18:13:11 +0100
- To: "Curt Arnold" <carnold@houston.rr.com>
- Cc: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
comments inlined On Friday, March 8, 2002, at 05:41 , Curt Arnold wrote: > Mary Brady wrote: >> [mb] Have we asked the working group what should happen if the iterms >> were >> represented as an internal subset? I'd rather get a concrete answer >> and > fix >> the >> problem than provide a work-around. > > I'd love to get a concrete, consise statement from the WG on this > matter, > too. I have raised it on this list, but I don't know if Dimitriadis has > either taken it back to the WG or if he can clarify the existing > position > from member confidential material. > [dd] I did, thanks for the reminder. Let me check with the minutes to state the final wording. > Might finally be time to fire up the bug tracker from our SF alter-ego > to > keep track of open issues. > [dd] Yes, to avoid this kind of mishp if nothing else. > If default attribute nodes should be provided when for default > attributes in > the internal subset, I would still recommend adding new tests for that > behavior and leaving the existing tests as is. Basically, creating an > is_staff.xml (for internal subset) and is_ versions of the 9 tests. > >
Received on Friday, 8 March 2002 12:11:47 UTC