tripu

Wow, so many ideas :) > Moving the TOC into a rail might make it more readily understandable and functional. How would that “rail” be different from the current ``...

Very good idea.

@plehegar, before I work on a PR reusing @tobie's code, I'd like to clarify how we're going to work with this project in the current cycle (design for 2017). I'd...

(Strong candidate for our next cycle; whether that's some time in 2016 or not.)

I like what @ianbjacobs proposed: “About this specification” (or better “About this document”).

I suggest we leave corner cases like this one out of formal rules and checkers: if a spec is discontinued, let's set up a generic "discontinued" page under /TR that...

My fear is that if we relax the rules to fit the _lowest common denominator_ we'll end up with only a few rules that won't be very helpful. eg, just...

(Strong candidate for our next cycle; whether that's some time in 2016 or not.)

`w3c-*` is already used for classes in specs indeed. Although a quick search returns only a few — among those: [`http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xmlbase-20000607.html`](http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xmlbase-20000607.html), [`http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xinclude-20010516/Overview.html`](http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xinclude-20010516/Overview.html), [`http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-resource-priorities-20141023/Overview.html`](http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-resource-priorities-20141023/Overview.html). It's used almost only to indicate the type of...

OK, so I thought at first, but I discarded that meaning because, why use CR as the prefix? I mean, aren't we talking about TR in general, ie all types...