Re: ACTION-96: Origin removal

(Back on public-html since this is about changes to the spec.)

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 17:01 +0100, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> [...]
> > I suggest simply marking it with a big-issue note stating that the 
> > section is intended to be removed pending its inclusion in an 
> > alternative spec.
> 
> Yes, I like that idea; please do that, Ian.

I'm very confused. Which section are we talking about removing?


> While you're at it, feel free to note the 2 possibilities Henri outlined 
> in his message of Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:33:27 +0200.

Could you elaborate on which section you think should get a note, and what 
the note should say? I'm very confused here.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 01:29:08 UTC