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

SGTM


On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> wrote:

> 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="
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/scripting-1.html#the-template-element
>> ">HTML5</a>.</strong>
>> ]]
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>
> SGTM, not gutting it has a higher risk of people looking at the wrong doc.
>
> --
> Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
>
>         ~~Yves
>
>