On 26 Aug 2011, at 18:05, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 8/26/2011 11:41 AM, Eric Covener wrote: >> Should we bump the "5"'s in the draft advisory and/or code to a more >> liberal #? At the very least for the 2.0 rewrite solution that will >> return forbidden instead of full content? > > Can we please avoid sending more advisories without a canonical link > to a wiki recommendations/discussion/observations page? As admins have > already adopted the 5's, they are in the best position to tell us what > broke, based on feedback from their audience. > > I'll start one shortly.
URL ? Dw.
