On 11/07/2012 03:59 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 6-11-2012 16:15, James Holsenback wrote:
>> On 11/06/2012 10:11 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 6-11-2012 16:04, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> Semantic trouble  :-)
>>>>
>>>> This is what I mean: It should /not/ be the full image. The commands do
>>>> not work. While +SR0.n and +ER0.n work correctly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am still not making myself clear enough.
>>>
>>> +Sn, +S0.n, +En, +E0.n are /unexisting/ commands which should be removed
>>> from the list at the start of the paragraph.
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>> well at this point I'm not 100% sure ... given what else I've
>> discovered. I'm just saying ... is there a chance that those variants
>> ARE legit ... parser doesn't seem to care.
>
> Well, parser /did/ care for +Sn and +En in my system, but not
> anymore.... However, they do /not/ do their job. The full image is
> rendered instead of the part in-between asked for. Same story for +S0.n
> and +E0.n (percentages).
>
> Also note that +S and +E are /not/ available in the index, while +SR and
> +ER are..
>
> My impression is that they are relicts from the 3.6 version and have
> been deactivated as they are redundant with +SRn and +ERn, respectively
> +SR0.n and +ER0.n
>
> Thomas
Yeah ... I think you may be correct about some of those variants have 
been disabled ... deprecated can't say for sure, but don't think so, I 
did a quick check of the change log and didn't see anything.

I'll be more than happy to change the docs when we get someone to expand 
on what's legit. You know something else that doesn't seem right is that 
/if/ those variants are deprecated I'd expect some kind of warning ... 
also the ones that are getting through seem to have rather loose 
validations rules.

Interesting find ... I'm anxious to get the straight scoop.

Post a reply to this message