W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: ACTION-96: Origin removal

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:01:18 +0100
Message-ID: <4974A3CE.5010707@lachy.id.au>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Sam Ruby wrote:
> Given that there is precedent for "commenting out" areas of the spec which 
> do not enjoy consensus, and that I have recently been informed that 
> sections can be removed from the HTMLWG draft and be retained in the WHATWG 
> draft, would a decision to remove the description of the Origin header from 
> the HTMLWG draft without prejudice (i.e. the door is left open for this to 
> be reopened in the future) be something everybody could live with?

Previous sections that have been commented out have been commented out 
in both the WHATWG copy and the HTMLWG copy of the spec.  Up until now, 
the only differences between the spec have been limited to the header 
section, including the Abstract and Status.  Everything from the 
introduction onwards is identical, and I strongly believe it should 
remain that way.

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.  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. **

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Monday, 19 January 2009 16:02:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:28 GMT