Re: [admin] Should WebApps' HTML Templates spec be published as a WG Note?

On Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> On 2/27/14 12:10 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> On 2/27/14 11:41 AM, ext Rafael Weinstein wrote:
>>> What do you recommend?
>>> It seems a little heavy-handed to kill it or gut it. What about putting a 
>>> big-red warning at the top that it has been merged to HTML and no longer 
>>> has normative weight.
>> I don't have a strong preference now and would like to hear from others. 
>> The above do have different +/-.
>> I think the principle of least surprise (`follow your nose`) indicates 
>> navigating to the ED would redirect to the HTML spec. It seems like the 
>> worst case scenario is for the contents of the ED to be inconsistent with 
>> HTML.
> Rafael, All - having received no additional feedback and only voices of 
> support for publishing a WG Note, the main questions seem to be: 1) whether 
> the Note should be gutted (f.ex. see [1]) or not; 2) should the ED be gutted 
> too.
> Although I agree gutting the Note would be a bit "heavy-handed" as you say, 
> it does eliminate the possibility of the contents being different than 
> HTMLWG's version. As such, I prefer gutting both the Note and the ED and 
> adding a prominent warning plus a link to HTML. For example, borrowing from 
> [1], adding something like to the Status of This Document section:
> [[
> <strong>Work on this document has been discontinued and it should not be 
> referenced or used as a basis for implementation. The features previously 
> specified in this document are now specified in <a 
> href="">HTML5</a>.</strong>
> ]]

SGTM, not gutting it has a higher risk of people looking at the wrong doc.

Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.


Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2014 15:38:24 UTC