- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:32:30 -0600
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html@w3.org
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 01:28 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: > (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? Oops; I assumed "it" in Lachlan's "marking it..." referred to a section on an Origin: HTTP header field. On review, all I find is a sentence buried in section 5.11.2.1 Hyperlink auditing: "In addition, an XXX-Origin header must always be included, whose value is the ASCII serialization of the origin of the the Document containing the hyperlink." -- http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#hyperlink-auditing > > 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. Never mind. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 03:33:40 UTC