On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 11:06:58 +0000
Michael Kay <mike(_at_)saxonica(_dot_)com> 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
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--