Skip to content

Conversation

@asutherland
Copy link
Member

Closes #828

Copy link
Member

@tantek tantek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm ok with marking this as 'org' W3C only if the 'url' field points to a W3C WG spec or an issue on said spec.

If we want to keep the 'url' field as linking to a WICG issue, then the 'org' should be "Proposal".

@asutherland asutherland force-pushed the service-worker-static-routing-api branch from ab67a9d to 666666f Compare September 29, 2023 00:10
@asutherland asutherland requested a review from tantek September 29, 2023 00:11
@asutherland
Copy link
Member Author

I'm ok with marking this as 'org' W3C only if the 'url' field points to a W3C WG spec or an issue on said spec.

If we want to keep the 'url' field as linking to a WICG issue, then the 'org' should be "Proposal".

I think the locus of activity is current on the WICG repo which has its own issues, so it probably makes sense to keep the URL as the WICG repo and mark this as Proposal, which I've now done.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

ServiceWorker static routing API

3 participants