I feel pretty strongly where this is a case where the spec is wrong in one
place and that the design intent was always clear.
This is a case where the behavior has to be right even if clarifying it
breaks existing implementations.
The design intent was always that topicref behave like conref for the
purpose of attribute merging.
In the original proposal there are two conflicting statements, point 25 and
point 26. How we missed that point 26 contradicts point 25 I don't know, but
certainly Michael, Robert, and I are in agreement that point 25 is correct
and point 26 is wrong and always has been.
Cheers,
E.
On 8/25/10 1:01 PM, "Nitchie, Chris" <> wrote:
