On Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 2/27/14 12:10 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 2/27/14 11:41 AM, ext Rafael Weinstein wrote:
What do you recommend?
It seems a little heavy-handed to kill it or gut it. What about putting a
big-red warning at the top that it has been merged to HTML and no longer
has normative weight.
I don't have a strong preference now and would like to hear from others.
The above do have different +/-.
I think the principle of least surprise (`follow your nose`) indicates
navigating to the ED would redirect to the HTML spec. It seems like the
worst case scenario is for the contents of the ED to be inconsistent with
HTML.
Rafael, All - having received no additional feedback and only voices of
support for publishing a WG Note, the main questions seem to be: 1) whether
the Note should be gutted (f.ex. see [1]) or not; 2) should the ED be gutted
too.
Although I agree gutting the Note would be a bit "heavy-handed" as you say,
it does eliminate the possibility of the contents being different than
HTMLWG's version. As such, I prefer gutting both the Note and the ED and
adding a prominent warning plus a link to HTML. For example, borrowing from
[1], adding something like to the Status of This Document section:
[[
<strong>Work on this document has been discontinued and it should not be
referenced or used as a basis for implementation. The features previously
specified in this document are now specified in <a
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/scripting-1.html#the-template-element";>HTML5</a>.</strong>
]]
WDYT?
SGTM, not gutting it has a higher risk of people looking at the wrong doc.
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
