On Monday 08 January 2007 17:20, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > Interesting. You asked the same question exactly a year ago: > http://www.nabble.com/block-container-compliance-tf920857.html
Ooops, my memory obviously doesn't extend that far back. Probably an age thing... > > Looks like I/we never did something about it. I'd still give the same > answer. What would need to be done is to understand the changes in > the spec from 1.0 to 1.1 concerning absolute positioning and area > generation. Then this has to be expressed with testcases as the basis > of updating the implementation. For the usual use-cases however, the > current implementation is fine IMO. > Isn't our current compliance stated with respect to 1.0 and not 1.1? We still should revise the text on the page I guess. > On 08.01.2007 05:03:32 Manuel Mall wrote: > > On the compliance page it indicates 'partial' for block-container > > in the 0.93 column but in the comments it says '[0.93] No known > > restrictions.'. > > > > Sounds a bit like a contradiction to me. What should it be? > > > > Manuel > > Jeremias Maerki Manuel
