On 8/13/11 6:19 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:02:56 +0200, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org
wrote:
After discussion with PLH and Ian Jacobs, and I don't think it's
necessary for us to go through the additional overhead of rescinding
the DOM 2 View specification.
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:02:56 +0200, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org wrote:
After discussion with PLH and Ian Jacobs, and I don't think it's
necessary for us to go through the additional overhead of rescinding the
DOM 2 View specification.
Instead, PLH and I support Anne's original proposal to
On 8/10/11 6:02 PM, ext Doug Schepers wrote:
After discussion with PLH and Ian Jacobs, and I don't think it's
necessary for us to go through the additional overhead of rescinding
the DOM 2 View specification.
Instead, PLH and I support Anne's original proposal to simply update
the status
On Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:18 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Anne, Ms2ger, All,
Anne and others proposed in [Proposal] the DOM 2 View Recommendation
[D2V] be rescinded. The rescinding process is defined in the Process
Document [Rescind]. However, Ian Jacobs just indicated in IRC
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Anne, Ms2ger, All - can you live with adding a note to D2V rather than going
down the rescind path?
I'm fine with having prominent notices in obsolescent standards
pointing readers to the up-to-date work. If
