On Thursday, 1 December 2011 at 19:25, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Adrian proposed the old XHR(1) spec be published as a WG Note (to > clearly state work on that spec has stopped) and this is a Call for > Consensus to do so. I object to doing so. It will just cause more confusion. Please lets only have one XHR document (and not an additional Note). If everyone just sticks to the story (which is very logical), then there should be no need for confusion: it's not that hard to explain and it's the merger is in everyone's best interest.
- CfC: publish new WD of XHR; deadline December 5 Arthur Barstow
- RE: publish new WD of XHR; deadline December 5 Adrian Bateman
- Re: CfC: publish new WD of XHR; deadline Decemb... Arthur Barstow
- Re: CfC: publish new WD of XHR; deadline De... Anne van Kesteren
- RE: CfC: publish new WD of XHR; deadlin... Adrian Bateman
- Re: CfC: publish new WD of XHR; de... Anne van Kesteren
- CfC: publish WG Note of the "old"... Arthur Barstow
- Re: CfC: publish WG Note of the "o... Marcos Caceres
- Re: CfC: publish WG Note of the &q... Glenn Adams
- Re: CfC: publish WG Note of the "o... Ms2ger