> > I should have said, or indeed asked, are we past last call for *new* > > proposals? > > ... > > Officially, no.
Thanks Julian. Regardless, I still don't see this in HTML5, it's too much of a change for where it seems to me we are. Thanks again, -- T.J. On 10 April 2010 12:06, Julian Reschke <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10.04.2010 12:52, T.J. Crowder wrote: > >> 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? >> ... >> > > Officially, no. > > 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). >> ... >> > > You found the status report, which is probably the best summary of where we > are. > > Going back to the proposal: similar proposals have been made in the past, > and have been rejected back then (several reasons that come to mind: > fallback behaviour, incompatibility with XML serialization), so I'd be > really surprised for this to get new considerations unless better reasons > than back then are presented (and sorry, I don't have a link to these > discussions right now). > > Best regards, Julian >
