Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 11:33:46 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
> On 8/10/05, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think that it is pretty clear, but as Tim disagrees, I think that >> this is a good indication that we need clarification. > I think it's good indication that you've argued with everyone, no > matter what they say. I'm strongly opposed to adding anything like > you're suggesting. Tim and I agree that the current text is > sufficient. There's a word for that. I might have misinterpreted your comment, but I'm arguing with Tim for saying that SEE's CAN contain relative refs and no clarifification is needed, and with you for saying that SEE's CANNOT contain relative refs and no clarification is needed. There's a word for that :) -- Dave
