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

Reply via email to