W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

Re: <strike>

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:45:45 +0100
To: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com>, "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Philip Taylor" <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, "HTMLwg WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u93f6jeh64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:26:10 +0100, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>  
> On 03/24/2010 06:13 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> This thread started out about whether it was a good idea that
>> xmlns="..." was a good validator mode switch.
> Correction: this thread[1] started seeking the rationale for the current  
> authoring requirements.

I was wondering whether I should have said sub-thread. :-)

>> It seems you are instead
>> arguing for retaining some presentational elements. Did you file a bug
>> on introducing <strike> again in the draft? I'm not really opposed to
>> that personally.
> People are welcome to pursue such bugs individually, but until 7034 is  
> resolved, I think it is only fair to warn people that I will consider  
> such resolutions provisional until the overall strategy question is  
> settled.

Everything is provisional until, say, we exit Last Call.

> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0452.html

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 22:46:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:14 UTC