On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 06:03 pm, Peter B. West wrote:
> Manuel Mall wrote:
> > This is another of those spec interpretation questions. Sorry to
> > populate this list with so many of these questions but this is a
> source
> > of real irritation for me in the moment. I just want to get
> > sub/superscripts working and do it properly and I am hitting all
> > these
> >
> > "murky" (as Peter put it) things in the spec.
> Don't apologise for actually reading the Recommendation, and thinking
> about it.  The fact is that there is not enough of that done by those
> who are "implementing" the Recommendation, as evidenced by the
> existence
> of these bugs in the document.  No matter what the interpretation,
> 7.13.1 and 7.13.2 have editorial bugs which need to be clarified.
> Think about it.  How many commercial implementations are out there? 
> The same bugs are still present in the 1.1 draft. (See Section 7.14).
> You found it, so you get to write to the editors.  If you are
> apprehensive about that, talk to me further off-list, or to Glen (who
> has communicated quite a lot with the editors, and who has popped up
> again) or Victor.

thanks for the encouragement. I am happy to write to the editors. And 
yes, as I am fairly new to this (in the sense of delving into the depth 
of spec) I am using this mailing list as a sounding board first because 
I am still apprehensive about generating "noise" / "garbage" or 
whatever you want to call it due to being a newbie and possibly not 
understanding something which to someone with more experience would be 

> Peter


Reply via email to