- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:14:17 -0400
- To: Ian Devlin <ian@iandevlin.com>
- CC: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
On 09/20/2012 05:15 AM, Ian Devlin wrote: > Yes, good call. Definitely need qualification on that point. Indeed, good catch. This will need to be revised to indicate that pubdate can be pursued as an extension specification. - Sam Ruby > On 20 September 2012 11:04, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com > <mailto:philipj@opera.com>> wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:33:55 +0200, Paul Cotton > <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com <mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>> wrote: > > [1] > http://dev.w3.org/html5/__decision-policy/html5-2014-__plan.html > <http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html> > > > The section on "185 drop pubdate attribute" says "Retain the current > pubdate attribute in the spec. Identify it as an at risk feature." > Is this a typo or misunderstanding, given that the spec currently > doesn't include pubdate on the <time> element? > > -- > Philip Jägenstedt > Core Developer > Opera Software > > > > > -- > ian devlin > e: ian@iandevlin.com <mailto:ian@iandevlin.com> > w: www.iandevlin.com <http://www.iandevlin.com> > t: @iandevlin <http://www.twitter.com/iandevlin> > skype: idevlin > > buy my book: html5 multimedia: develop and design > <http://html5multimedia.com> >
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 12:14:45 UTC