I'd appreciate a few more eyes over this, in particular look out for messed
up typesetting as there could still be a few bugs lurking.
In the HTML version, there are a few cases where section numbers are missing
from the subsection headers in the TOC. I see at least 11 and 22.
In the PDF, is
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 13:41, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 09:40:40AM +0200, Sean Leather wrote:
I've made a ticket and proposal page for making the labelled field
syntax stricter
I'm definitely in favor of this change. I only have an issue with calling
it
stricter
