Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Dov Feldstern <dfeldstern-rhxOsnTko2JWk0Htik3J/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The truth is, if this information is available, then I would just
incorporate it into the precedence tables I suggest: so you'd have
dynamic precedence tables, which are ordered first by range extent,
and only when that's not enough (same range / overlapping ranges),
also by a static precedence table.
Except that the precedence table would be different in different par
of the paragraph. So in effect, you need complete ranges.
I'm not sure I follow you...
Given the full range information, I suggest incorporating it into the
precedence tables. Highest precedence goes to the outermost range (which
is easily determined --- and well-defined --- because I know the extents
of all the ranges). Only in those cases where this information is not
enough (same extent, overlapping ranges) do I fallback to the static
per-attribute-type precedence table.
JMarc
