Make highlight requirements formatting more consistent #182
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Improve formatting consistency and readability of exactly what is required for a highlight locator object for epub
TechWilk
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Improve formatting consistency and readability of exactly what is required for a highlight locator object for epub.
This should also be expanded to fix the same inconsistency in the
1. Progressionand2. Bookmarkssections. However despiteCSS Selector, DOM Range or CFIbeing listed in theMUSTblock of requirements they appear to also somehow be optional by being marked with a?. Thus this PR leaves them untouched.