On 6/27/06, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/27/06, Stephen Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Come on now, play nice.
>
Right.
> I was agreeing with you in the first place regarding the validity of
> including the DIV as content, so I was certainly not trying to subvert
> the meaning. Like it or not, the mismatched language in the two
> sections means that it's not clear; there was no tortured reading,
> only a genuine effort to understand the text.
>
I can tell you what the WG meant. Twisting it round to have the MAY
break the MUST is pretty bogus. That said, if you don't think the text
is sufficiently clear, I will be happy to add it to my list of errata
(second item, there is a mistake in the author subelements, which
should allow any attribute in the schema).
I agree, I never thought it could be read to break the MUST. I'm the
one who asked for Abdera not to treat the DIV as content. My
differing (and admittedly mistaken) interpretation didn't have any
materiel effect at all; I just never grasped the intention that the
spec was trying to tell us that honoring the markup during display is
optional. I do think you should add it your list of errata, though.
I think saying "the HTML markup" and "the XHTML markup" instead of
"that markup" and "the markup" would improve the clarity of the spec.
- Stephen
--
Robert Sayre
--
Stephen Duncan Jr
www.stephenduncanjr.com
