Manu Sporny wrote:
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.
Ahh my bad next email
http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2008-August/001708.html
sorry
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.
Agreed
Thanks
Martin McEvoy
-- manu
[1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
_______________________________________________
microformats-new mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
_______________________________________________
microformats-new mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
