fantasai
fantasai
The details of the specification are in the prose, tho! ;) Maybe “Specification Data”?
Not all of them are links? :) Although most of them are.
@wseltzer But now that we've update the Patent Policy, we should be able to put it in a dedicated section instead of in SOTD, right? :) I think the difficult...
@deniak Fixed this in the repo, can you upload to w3.org?
Hi Marcos, I actually dropped the "Back to Top" requirement for this release, opting instead to add the "Jump to Toc" button via JS. (This allowed us to put it...
Also, while we're at it, can we pull out the Group info into the header? > This document was produced by the CSS Working Group as a Candidate Recommendation Whatever....
> I'd like to see/get some concrete examples on what it would look like. Why not just ``` [ Working | Interest ] Group[s]: XXX Working Group ``` This isn't...
Wrt GH link, the template is written up in a way that does not lend itself to using a different technology. So, while it's nice that specberus is more lax,...
@plehegar Works for me. You could also use “Published by:” (used in the current SOTD wording) or “Developed by:” (feels more active? but maybe not accurate if it's just editorial...
Weird. I unfortunately don't know JS, so no idea why. CC @tabatkins ?