> The "gutting" of specifications (which has also happened elsewhere) is more confusing and troublesome than the "obsoleted" language used in @plehegar's PR. Respectfully, I disagree with this. Specs change/evolve over time and a large proportion of them "die on the vine". And, although burdensome, it's the Editor's responsibility to update broken links (that's the nature of the web, we deal with it). It's why we've been unapologetically gutting specs at the w3c for years. > Publishing WG as we explore past, present, and in-progress packaging related specifications Ideally, the WG should be tracking latest efforts, and updating whatever documents currently point to obsoleted things (to not point to them). Note that this specification didn't stop, it morphed into the other specification. The right solution here would have been for the TAG to have given this repository to the WICG, then there would have been a clear migration strategy/story (it helps avoid these kinds of situations). -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3ctag/packaging-on-the-web/issues/35#issuecomment-372914861
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2018 06:07:52 UTC