Re: Alternate syntax for defining class attribute

> > I should have said, or indeed asked, are we past last call for *new*
> > proposals?
> > ...
>
> Officially, no.

Thanks Julian. Regardless, I still don't see this in HTML5, it's too much of
a change for where it seems to me we are.

Thanks again,

-- T.J.


On 10 April 2010 12:06, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 10.04.2010 12:52, T.J. Crowder wrote:
>
>> Julian,
>>
>>  > > For one thing, we're after last call, aren't we?
>>  > No, we aren't.
>>
>> Thanks. Sorry, that was very sloppy terminology on my part, obviously
>> there are still a number of outstanding bugs/issues (per section 3 of
>> the last status report, "Getting to Last Call").
>>
>> I should have said, or indeed asked, are we past last call for *new*
>> proposals?
>> ...
>>
>
> Officially, no.
>
>  Apologies, I'm sure this is documented somewhere. I kicked around the
>> working group pages but I'm still relatively new to the working group's
>> page structure (and terminology).
>> ...
>>
>
> You found the status report, which is probably the best summary of where we
> are.
>
> Going back to the proposal: similar proposals have been made in the past,
> and have been rejected back then (several reasons that come to mind:
> fallback behaviour, incompatibility with XML serialization), so I'd be
> really surprised for this to get new considerations unless better reasons
> than back then are presented (and sorry, I don't have a link to these
> discussions right now).
>
> Best regards, Julian
>