Julian, > > For one thing, we're after last call, aren't we? > No, we aren't.
Thanks. Sorry, that was very sloppy terminology on my part, obviously there are still a number of outstanding bugs/issues (per section 3 of the last status report, "Getting to Last Call"). I should have said, or indeed asked, are we past last call for *new* proposals? Apologies, I'm sure this is documented somewhere. I kicked around the working group pages but I'm still relatively new to the working group's page structure (and terminology). Thanks, -- T.J. On 10 April 2010 11:15, Julian Reschke <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10.04.2010 09:51, T.J. Crowder wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Thanks again, all, for the comments. >> >> First off, there's no question in my mind that this proposal will not be >> part of HTML5. For one thing, we're after last call, aren't we? Even if >> > > No, we aren't. > > ... >> > > Best regards, Julian >
