Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

07.11.2014, 17:53, "fantasai" <>:
> On 11/07/2014 09:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> šOn 11/7/14 8:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> šOn Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Arthur Barstow <> wrote:
>>>> š[Draft-Note]
>>> šIt would be nice if editor's draft points to
>> šThat would be OK with me but as a W3C TR I'm not sure if that is permitted or not.
>> šYves, Cindy, PLH - can we do as Anne suggests?
> I'm pretty sure there is no rule against pointing to another spec in a Note.
>> šI suppose another option is to remove the Editor's Draft from the boilerplate.
> It probably makes sense to do that anyway. They should both point to the
> currently-maintained draft.

Yeah, the point is that we are not maintaining a draft and WHAT-WG are. So we do the world a service by pointing to that, and no service by avoiding it.

And I don't know of a rule that says we cannot do that. It isn't a normative reference, it's just a link to useful information.


Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex - - - Find more at

Received on Friday, 7 November 2014 17:58:30 UTC