- From: Staffan Måhlén <staffan.mahlen@comhem.se>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:31:15 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 16 Jun 2005 at 8:39, L. David Baron wrote: > > The second problem could perhaps be addressed in the > > definition of the counters function, by making it not include the > > "initital" reset. > > Although that rule would require an exception for when the root reset is > the only one in scope. It's simpler to avoid exceptions on exceptions. Yes, but i was thinking that wasn't going to be needed. Using 'counters' without resetting seems less likely while 'counter' could perhaps use the "error recovery". /Staffan
Received on Friday, 17 June 2005 16:31:13 UTC