- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 18:44:14 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
- CC: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
On 06/03/2011 17:29, Peter Moulder wrote:
> If there's concern that this report may merely duplicate issues Anton
> has raised, then I'm happy to wait until those issues are addressed and
> modify (or retract) this issue report once a revised version of
> appendix E is available.
>
> (Note of course that this only applies if appendix E is in fact
> changed as part of that: obviously no change to ยง9.9 alone could be
> enough to remove any contradictions within appendix E.)
As I understand it, there are not plans to further modify Appendix E
(beyond what's already in the current WD) in response to Issue 60, which
personally I now consider closed, despite it not going as far as I would
have liked.
[In particular, I think that your objections concern the use of the word
"descendants". ("Atomicity" is discussed in 9.9.1, and so does impact
Appendix E which is not a replacement for the whole of 9.9.1 but merely
a replacement for the list of painting layers.) The WG rejected the
proposal to clarify this word (eg by using my term "dependants"). It
sounds like you wish them to reconsider.]
Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Sunday, 6 March 2011 17:44:52 UTC