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:Main Page: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
** I agree. If needed, we could create a glossary, but I don't think abbreviations and other terms should be on separate pages. --[[User:Lachlan Hunt|Lachlan Hunt]] 22:05, 15 Nov 2006 (PST) | ** I agree. If needed, we could create a glossary, but I don't think abbreviations and other terms should be on separate pages. --[[User:Lachlan Hunt|Lachlan Hunt]] 22:05, 15 Nov 2006 (PST) | ||
*** I agree that this can be condensed to a single page, but I think we still need a page for this. A glossary is a good idea. --[[User:Matthew Raymond|Matthew Raymond]] | *** I agree that this can be condensed to a single page, but I think we still need a page for this. A glossary is a good idea. --[[User:Matthew Raymond|Matthew Raymond]] | ||
== nibbler-site-verification Claimed spec link does not link to a spec == | |||
valign="top" | |||
nibbler-site-verification | |||
Used to verify ownership of Nibbler site | |||
[http://nibbler.silktide.com/ Nibbler site] | |||
Incomplete proposal | |||
Claimed spec link does not link to a spec | |||
can someone help in tell me what i need to do to get this ok | |||
Latest revision as of 11:02, 13 September 2012
WHATWG Specifications
- I think this whole section should go. Problems should be categorised by what they apply to, not classified by which specification should solve them. The solution, not the problem, is bound to a particular specification. --Michel Fortin
- I agree that problems shouldn't be categorised by the specification, but I don't agree this section should go. I think it's ok to provide some documentation about the actual specifications, including the actual features included within. It should be used to provide summaries and examples of actual features. Only when a proposal has been accepted and included in the spec, should it be included in this section. --Lachlan Hunt 22:03, 15 Nov 2006 (PST)
- That's fine with me. --Michel Fortin
- That sounds fine, Lachlan. --Matthew Raymond
- That's fine with me. --Michel Fortin
- I agree that problems shouldn't be categorised by the specification, but I don't agree this section should go. I think it's ok to provide some documentation about the actual specifications, including the actual features included within. It should be used to provide summaries and examples of actual features. Only when a proposal has been accepted and included in the spec, should it be included in this section. --Lachlan Hunt 22:03, 15 Nov 2006 (PST)
Terms, Acronyms and Abbreviations
- I think this section too should go too. --Michel Fortin
- I agree. If needed, we could create a glossary, but I don't think abbreviations and other terms should be on separate pages. --Lachlan Hunt 22:05, 15 Nov 2006 (PST)
- I agree that this can be condensed to a single page, but I think we still need a page for this. A glossary is a good idea. --Matthew Raymond
- I agree. If needed, we could create a glossary, but I don't think abbreviations and other terms should be on separate pages. --Lachlan Hunt 22:05, 15 Nov 2006 (PST)
nibbler-site-verification Claimed spec link does not link to a spec
valign="top" nibbler-site-verification Used to verify ownership of Nibbler site Nibbler site Incomplete proposal Claimed spec link does not link to a spec
can someone help in tell me what i need to do to get this ok