On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 04:10:20PM -0500, John R Levine wrote: > It appears that Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> said: > > On 26/01/2024 19:41, Christian Huitema wrote: > > > I did not see in the draft a discussion of the "tombstone" practice, > > > > I quite like that rarely-done practice, but regardless of what > > one thinks of Martin's draft, I think it'd be better to try > > encourage more tombstones via it's own draft. (Would be happy > > to help someone do such if some else is interested.) > > Unless the plan is to have the tombstone contain text from the authors > explaining why they abandoned the draft (good luck with that), what > advantage would that have over the datatracker saying the draft is inactive? It makes it harder to jump directly to the text of the draft without having seen the notation about the draft's status. (That is, if you start just from a draft name or a version-less link, you get the tombstone; you'd need to go straight to a version-specific link to skip it.) And having put it that way, I don't expect universal agreement that that's a good thing. -Ben
