Subject: Re: [xsl] XPath 3.0 question: What are function annotations? From: davep <davep@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 12:13:01 +0000 |
On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 11:06:58 +0000 Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > It's an error Mike. Surely to goodness you can fix that as > > editorial? Liam, is it too late? > > > > The WGs voted in their meeting in Prague to publish the PR documents > as Recommendations subject to fixing of a handful of known errors. > Editors have authority to fix things that are purely typographical, > e.g. a broken link or a spelling mistake, but this is a technical > correction so fixing it needs WG endorsement. Is it? "Section J.4.1, Substantive Changes, [1] says function annotations were all removed, as does the bug [2] to which the appendix refers. " I'd say that was editorial insofar as the editor failed to carry out that action? regards -- regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XPath 3.0 question: What , Michael Kay | Thread | Re: [xsl] XPath 3.0 question: What , Liam R E Quin |
Re: [xsl] XPath 3.0 question: What , Michael Kay | Date | Re: [xsl] XPath 3.0 question: What , Michael Kay |
Month |