Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-118 broken-link-types

On Feb 28, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 28.02.2011 23:14, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> Here is the decision. It has been drafted in HTML format to aid readability.
>> ...
> I think it would be good to clarify which relations will be affected.
> It appears that the original CP <> was about:
> 	"top", "first", "start", "contents", "ToC" and "index"
> while the accepted CP <> mentions to drop:
> 	"index, up, first, last"
> I'm not opposed to drop things from HTML5, in particular when they have better definitions elsewhere.
> The question of validity will come up again anyway (ISSUE-27).
> However, it seems that the accepted proposal suggests not changing a few of the relations about what the ISSUE originally was opened; we may have to revisit them.

The Change Proposal adopted is this: <>. Its Details section says:

>>> Remove all prose relating to the following link types: index, up, first,  last.

This would include, by my understanding, removal of the Synonyms sections of those definitions, which include the synonyms "top", "contents", "toc", "begin", "start" and "end".


Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 07:26:12 UTC