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. > Peter,
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 obvious. > Peter Manuel
