On fre, 2010-11-05 at 22:33 +, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 28 October 2010 20:15, Thom Brown wrote:
> >
> > It was already inconsistent in the SGML, but if you wish, I'll redo it so
> > that they're all in tables. That will mean taking the sections which kept
> > index terms outside of tables alre
On 23 November 2010 22:04, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On fre, 2010-11-05 at 22:33 +, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 28 October 2010 20:15, Thom Brown wrote:
>> >
>> > It was already inconsistent in the SGML, but if you wish, I'll redo it so
>> > that they're all in tables. That will mean taking the
