A user account is required in order to edit this wiki, but we've had to disable public user registrations due to spam.
To request an account, ask an autoconfirmed user on Chat (such as one of these permanent autoconfirmed members).
Talk:Feature Proposals: Difference between revisions
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
: It's a bad proposal, but it's still a proposal. Maybe it should be classed in a list of rejected proposals with a short explaination of why it is rejected (mostly what you've just said above). The idea is that if someone want to propose it again by adding it on the wiki he'll see it's already there and know against what he has to argue if he wishes to pursue. --[[User:Michel Fortin|Michel Fortin]] 22:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | : It's a bad proposal, but it's still a proposal. Maybe it should be classed in a list of rejected proposals with a short explaination of why it is rejected (mostly what you've just said above). The idea is that if someone want to propose it again by adding it on the wiki he'll see it's already there and know against what he has to argue if he wishes to pursue. --[[User:Michel Fortin|Michel Fortin]] 22:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
== <content> Tag == | |||
I am not sure if this would be the right place to propose a new <content> tag as lined out in [http://herbert.gandraxa.com/herbert/hct.asp this paper]. I am not even sure, if there isn't already a proposed tag addressing exactly the semantical problem identified in there (if so, I was not able to find one). Can I be advised if to add the proposal or better not? Thanks in advance. [[User:Donar|Donar]] 07:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
: PS: In the meantime i started a discussion on the WHATWG forum. [[User:Donar|Donar]] 08:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:53, 23 April 2007
Guidelines
Lachlan, I think these feature proposal guidelines are cluttering this page unnecessarily. It would be better to put them elsewhere and just create a link to the guidelines. Elsewhere could be on the Contribution Guidelines page, were you've put them initially, because feature proposals are contributions. --Michel Fortin 08:15, 16 November 2006 (PST)
- Replying to myself (again), maybe the guidelines are not needed anymore. If someone creates a proposal from the template and fills all the sections he can, others can complete the proposal if they think its valuable and are knowledgeable enough. That's why we have a wiki in the first place, isn't it? -Michel Fortin 08:21, 16 November 2006 (PST)
Corner Element
Do we really need a <corner> element mentioned in the page? This is clearly presentational and already addressed by CSS. Same goes for <blink>. --Matthew Raymond 14:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's a bad proposal, but it's still a proposal. Maybe it should be classed in a list of rejected proposals with a short explaination of why it is rejected (mostly what you've just said above). The idea is that if someone want to propose it again by adding it on the wiki he'll see it's already there and know against what he has to argue if he wishes to pursue. --Michel Fortin 22:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
<content> Tag
I am not sure if this would be the right place to propose a new <content> tag as lined out in this paper. I am not even sure, if there isn't already a proposed tag addressing exactly the semantical problem identified in there (if so, I was not able to find one). Can I be advised if to add the proposal or better not? Thanks in advance. Donar 07:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- PS: In the meantime i started a discussion on the WHATWG forum. Donar 08:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)