-cc public-html; +cc www-archive, rather than bothering ~400 people with a "+1"...
On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 17:01 +0100, Lachlan Hunt wrote: [...] > I suggest simply marking it with a big-issue note stating that the > section is intended to be removed pending its inclusion in an > alternative spec. Yes, I like that idea; please do that, Ian. While you're at it, feel free to note the 2 possibilities Henri outlined in his message of Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:33:27 +0200. > There is precedent for this in a few places already. > > e.g. Section 2.2.3, Common conformance requirements for APIs exposed to > JavaScript, includes a big-issue note stating: > > ** This section will eventually be removed in favour of WebIDL. ** > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
