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

Re: ISSUE-124 rel-limits - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:23:03 +0100
Message-ID: <4CDBC407.407@gmx.de>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
On 10.11.2010 18:37, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> ...
> Two-part answer:
>
> - If there is no opposing proposal, we will put forth a call for consensus, rather than a survey. Implementors could object to the CfC, but then we'd likely ask any objectors to write a counter-proposal.
>
> - If we have no implementations of the proposal by the time we go to CR, I would expect it to be listed as an "at risk" feature and dropped in due course if there continue to be no implementations. Likewise for any other HTML5 feature with no implementations going into CR.
> ...

It seems that I unfortunately got he granularity wrong for this issue; 
"nofollow" and "noreferrer" are different in

- "noreferrer" has UA requirements attached to it, and

- there's ongoing discussion of replacing/augmenting "noreferrer"'s 
functionality with more; see 
<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11235>

I believe it would be good to drop the "noreferrer" discussion from this 
issue (and maybe open a separate once once we have made progress on < 
<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11235>).

If the chairs are ok with this, I'd then update my CP to be specifically 
about "nofollow".

Best regards, Julian

PS: maybe a topic for "other business" in today's telco
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 10:23:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:06 UTC