- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 11:01:20 +0100
- To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com, dug@us.ibm.com, frystyk@microsoft.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org, ruellan@crf.canon.fr
Oops... a word went missing... I meant to say (missing text >>highligthed<<):
"Is an intermediary supposed to abort processing if it finds a non-mU header block that references an
mU header block >>targetted at none<< it does not understand (i.e. is section 2.5 meant to be recursive?)?
Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> [...] Is an intermediary supposed to abort processing if it finds a non-mU
> header block that references an mU header block it does not understand (i.e. is section 2.5 meant to be
> recursive?)?
>
> Jean-Jacques.
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2001 05:03:24 UTC