On 08.01.2007 10:39:54 Manuel Mall wrote: > 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...
No, if I look it myself. :-) I had to search for it. I didn't really remember. Search engines are like brain extensions. > > > > 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. 1.0 generally, I think. We may have to start stating explicitely if we implement 1.0 or 1.1 behaviour for certain FOs (like block-container where the behaviour changed). > > 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 Jeremias Maerki
