Introduce an appendix cataloging old terminology

[frivoal]

See https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/868/files?diff=unified&w=1#r1654549592 for context.

---

Preview | Diff

[frivoal]

RESOLUTION: Adopt appendix retired terms, pending some tweaking

[TallTed]

Consistently precedes the <a ...> with the in.

[frivoal]

@TallTed

Consistently precedes the <a ...> with the in.

There was actually a logic to the way I have done it: when it is possible to link to the term itself, I have included "in" inside the <a> tag, which links to the specific anchor, as I am linking to something "in the section". When the term has no link, and the only think I can link to is the section, I have put "in" outside of the <a> tag, as I am linking to the section.

[TallTed]

I understand your logic, now you've explained it. As they will lack that explanation, however, I think new readers will find the inconsistency meaningless at best and confusing at worst. I'll live with whatever the CG thinks.

[frivoal]

Any alternative suggestion, other than uniformizing as you've proposed earlier?

[fantasai]

Consistently include "in"? Hitting the top of the section or a dfn inside, either way it's in the section.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Introduce an appendix cataloging old terminology, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Merge PR 898 Introduce glossary of old terms

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> florian: This is the appendix of retired terms
<fantasai> ... including "Proposed Recommendation"
<fantasai> ... addressed all of TallTed's comments
<fantasai> ... one he didn't confirm yet was fixing the consistency of whether "in" is part of the hyperlinks
<fantasai> cwilso: In general I think it's fine, we can merge
<fantasai> ... only thought is, would it be useful to say what happened to the terms? Like why they're not relevant.
<fantasai> florian: For ones that were renamed, I mentioned
<fantasai> ... those retired, it wasn't the term retired, but the thing it refers to
<fantasai> ... could put a description here but that's redundant with the change sections of the processes that retired them
<fantasai> ... info is out there, didn't link directly to it though
<fantasai> florian recaps discussion now that TallTed is here
<fantasai> florian: if someone wants to link to old changelogs, can do in a follow up commit
<fantasai> ... don't want to reproduce the rationale in-line -- might get it wrong, and it's too much text for such an appendix
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR 898 Introduce glossary of old terms