Not sure what we could point to in the spec to show that something isn't present any more. But happy to fix that in a future PR if we find a better reference.
Originally posted by @jgraham in #4189 (comment)
We don't really have a very strong guideline for this. Right now, it just says:
If a feature is removed from a specification, link to an issue, pull request, or commit showing the removal.
We should probably have an order of preference. I suspect we should probably prefer spec text (e.g., an errata section), then developer-audience publications (e.g., release notes), then the most durable and proximate process citation (e.g., commit > PR > issue > intent message). But that's just my hunch, it might be worthy of discussion.
Originally posted by @jgraham in #4189 (comment)
We don't really have a very strong guideline for this. Right now, it just says:
We should probably have an order of preference. I suspect we should probably prefer spec text (e.g., an errata section), then developer-audience publications (e.g., release notes), then the most durable and proximate process citation (e.g., commit > PR > issue > intent message). But that's just my hunch, it might be worthy of discussion.