Re: existing contenteditable spec

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org>
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
> wrote:
> ...
>
>>
>> The respec conversion is useful no matter what. Having 2 documents, 1
>> that normatively specs some things, and one that is a historical reference
>> does sound like a reasonable thing, even though as you said, it seems not
>> entirely clear yet which feature will go in which.
>>
>> However, to make things clear, I suggest that:
>>
>> * The historical reference should use WG-NOTE as the status
>>
>
> done
>

After feedback from W3C people, I have reverted this to "unofficial".

-- 
Johannes Wilm
Fidus Writer
http://www.fiduswriter.org