[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Which is definitive odf?
2008/6/17 Sam Johnston <firstname.lastname@example.org>: > And which part of what I said implied that this would not be the case? The > point is to have the TC looking at a recent release, but to give them some > room to move... tying them to the version available at launch time or > release time is not really workable. OK, I read your comment differently. > >> >> To 'keep up to date' is the issue. >> Suggest a request to the main TC to identify (change markup) all changes >> to an existing document with each release such that this TC can >> identify changes. > > So you want them to target multiple releases? If they have the bandwidth > then all the better... No. Just to make it easier for them to recognise changes in a changing spec so they know where to work on updates. This TC's work should track updates to the main spec. > >> >> Another one would be to produce a version (xhtml) which had navigable >> ID values to check tests against links to the standard. > > I've mentioned this in a previous thread too - even if the ToC within the > spec document(s) are currently broken, the anchors themselves are there and > can be referenced as I have in a number of my posts (you just have to view > source to get them). And the anchors are ... weak? generate-id() would be an improvement. The para number converted to an ID value would be better, could be derived. regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk