- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:25:35 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10462 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX --- Comment #3 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2010-09-08 08:25:34 --- EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: Ah, I see. That list is non-normative intentionally — it's actually inaccurate, and would have to be dramatically complicated to be made perfectly accurate (as would be needed to put it into a normative table). This is because the normative requirements have subtle complexities like referring to elements that define commands, as opposed to referring only to elements by element name. Also, I think having the "no restriction" elements in the table would make the table much more difficult to read. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 08:25:36 UTC