W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2011

Re: "index" link relation

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:09:03 +0000
Message-ID: <393603025-1309460946-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-276178029-@b27.c18.bise6.blackberry>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Nope those were quotes along with long extrapolations. 

Please provide URL to spec and/or decisions (such as the ones Sam provided) not email messages, and a short succinct quote (under 140 characters would be nice) from such citations that clearly substantiates your position.

And Sam's right, if no such clear substantiation exists then you'll have to open another (follow-up) issue for the wg/chairs to consider.



------Original Message------
From: Julian Reschke
To: Tantek Çelik
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: "index" link relation
Sent: Jun 29, 2011 01:28

On 2011-06-29 03:21, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> ...
> My concern is this, given that "index" was in the core HTML4 spec, and
> now isn't in the core HTML5 spec, we must be diligent in explaining
> *why* it is ok that we still register it (e.g. with specific quote
> from the WG decision that explains that it's ok).
> If you can find such a quote (and not have to add sentences/paragraphs
> of explanation/theory, i.e. this email thread), then yes, go ahead and
> edit the wiki to register 'index' and add that specific cite/quote of
> the WG decision.
> ...

I already did last week.

See <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0334.html> 
and <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0336.html>.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 19:09:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:14 UTC