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). -- Robert Sayre
