On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:28 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > Mostly a compliance issue. If you look at it from the XSL-1.1 POV, > it's probably a bug, too. ATM, I'm unsure what to do. We probably > need to verify that we understand the spec concerning the top/left > properties on absolutely positioned block-containers correctly. I'm > tempted to leave everything like it is for now. >
I was just wondering if our documentation is consistent and if we should capture this issue may be in a testcase or a bugzilla so we don't loose track of it? > On 15.01.2006 16:01:04 Manuel Mall wrote: > > On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:40 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > Probably the "partial" indicator. Please review the following > > > thread: > > > http://www.nabble.com/Preparing-for-the-first-release---Examples- > > >t542 439.html#a1461388 > > > > > > (especially the part where we realized that the spec changed in a > > > backwards-incompatible way). At some point this will have to be > > > looked at again. > > > > Interesting - is this a bug or a compliance issue - I don't quite > > understand? > > > > > On 15.01.2006 10:15:27 Manuel Mall wrote: > > > > Just stumbled across this on our compliance page. For > > > > block-container we say in the compliance column for 0.91 > > > > 'partial' but in the comment it says '[0.91 beta] No known > > > > restrictions'. > > > > > > > > Who is right? > > > > > > Jeremias Maerki > > > > Manuel > > Jeremias Maerki Manuel
