W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Issues 89 through 97

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:12:38 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad1001180812o654ee0aat87cc568dd5589de2@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> As noted with the recent @doc attribute discussion, Ian came into the
> group, barely wrote a couple of sentences that an implementor wants
> this, and when I asked for some more background on this new attribute,
> and justification for adding something that I feel is not something we
> _really_ want in the spec, I was told to dig for all of this
> information in the (many times contradictory) email messages.

The @doc attribute had been discussed pretty extensively previously.

Can you point out the contradictory information Ian gave in his messages?

~TJ
Received on Monday, 18 January 2010 16:13:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:58 GMT