- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 11:26:38 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: > > If John removes his objection, and nobody else comes forward, then there > will be no remaining options, and therefore no poll. If he does not, > there are two options: > > 1) Publish with @summary marked as obsolete > 2) Publish with @summary marked as deprecated Given the recent confusion over what those terms mean (in particular, given that the HTML5 spec uses the word "obsolete" in a manner that is distinct from the way that HTML4 uses both "obsolete" and "deprecated"), it would be useful if such a poll defined the terms so that there is no ambiguity about what the decision actually is. (As an editor, I'd have no idea what to do given as a resolution either "mark summary as obsolete" or "mark summary as deprecated". As far as I can tell, HTML5 could be argued to do both already.) Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 11:36:59 UTC