Martin McEvoy wrote: > I would like to close issue D3: 2008-01-10 Position. > > as it was resolved in this email > http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2008-August/001707.html > > are there any objections to this decision?
Note that the wording on the final bullet point should be: * The sequential identifier MAY be specified out-of-sequence. ...and not what you have in the e-mail that you linked to. The two corrections are: 1. "Can" vs. "MAY" differentiation - the word "Can" doesn't have any specific meaning in specifications, whereas MAY does have a specific meaning.[1] 2. "Content" vs. "sequential identifier" - the /Content/ of the element is the /sequential identifier/. The /sequential identifier/ may be specified out-of-sequence. -- manu [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
