Summary: 2.8 Numbering
Version: 2.0 Working Draft
AssignedTo: [hidden email] ReportedBy: [hidden email] QAContact: [hidden email]
2.8.2 states "Thereâs no imperative state for an fo:number, i.e. itâs not a
counter or an variable. "
Yet 2.8.4 states "The "reset-level" determines the level that the fo:numberâs
internal state in FO processor needs to be reset to its reset-value."
There appears to be some conflict here?
suggest either define 'imperative state' or remove the statement from 2.8.2
since clearly an initial value and 'state' is required.