- From: Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 20:14:01 +0000
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
- CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Jonas, Do you agree with Tobie that Sections 6 & 7 should be non-normative? If so, I am happy to take care of this. Cheers. Eliot > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc] > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 12:28 AM > To: Tobie Langel > Cc: public-webapps@w3.org > Subject: Re: [IndexedDB] Normative content arguably informative in IndexedDB > LC draft > > Thanks for finding this. I filed > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17303 > > / Jonas > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Section 6 (Privacy) and 7 (Authorization) of the IndexedDB LC draft[1] > > feel very informative, yet they're not marked as such. > > > > Is there ground to keep them as normative content or should we > > explicitly mark them as non-normative, remove their usage of the RFC > > 2119 MAY keyword, and mark the linked references ([COOKIES]) as > informative? > > > > Best, > > > > --tobie > > > > --- > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-IndexedDB-20120524/ > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 20:14:43 UTC