- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:36:25 -0800
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
- Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:39 AM, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> wrote: > A regular note is typically non normative content that remains in a spec > forever. Ed notes are more ephemeral and generally are ascot the document > and its development rather than advice about the normative content . For both of the examples given in your previous message, the CSSWG has either used regular notes, or just source-document comments, and not seen a problem. All of this is supporting the argument that "ednote" doesn't have a strong semantic concept, making it unclear precisely when to use it. The existing note/issue dichotomy is very clear in comparison - info vs problems. Source-document comments handle the final category of "notes to future self / other editors, that aren't relevant to other spec readers". ~TJ
Received on Friday, 24 February 2017 21:43:54 UTC