make it possible to distinguish proposals from actual extensions for …

…rel='' link types

git-svn-id: http://svn.whatwg.org/webapps@351 340c8d12-0b0e-0410-8428-c7bf67bfef74

index

@@ -15742,14 +15742,50 @@ mpt says:
     <p>A list of other keyword values that have exactly the same processing
      requirements. Authors must not use the values defined to be synonyms,
      they are only intended to allow user agents to support legacy content.
+
+   <dt>Status
+
+   <dd>
+    <p>One of the following:</p>
+
+    <dl>
+     <dt>Proposal
+
+     <dd>The keyword has not received wide peer review and approval. It is
+      included for completeness because pages use the keyword. Pages should
+      not use the keyword.
+
+     <dt>Accepted
+
+     <dd>The keyword has received wide peer review and approval. It has a
+      specification that unambiguously defines how to handle pages that use
+      the keyword, including when they use them in incorrect ways. Pages may
+      use the keyword.
+
+     <dt>Rejected
+
+     <dd>The keyword has received wide peer review and it has been found to
+      have significant problems. Pages must not use the keyword. When a
+      keyword has this status, the "
+    </dl>
+
+    <p>If a keyword is added with the "proposal" status and found to be
+     redundant with existing values, it should be removed and listed as a
+     synonym for the existing value. If a keyword is added with the
+     "proposal" status and found to be harmful, then it should be changed to
+     "rejected" status, and its "Effect on..." information should be changed
+     accordingly.</p>
   </dl>
 
   <p>Conformance checkers must use the information given on the WHATWG Wiki
    RelExtensions page to establish if a value not explicitly defined in this
    specification is allowed or not. When an author uses a new type not
    defined by either this specification or the Wiki page, conformance
    checkers should offer to add the value to the Wiki, with the details
-   described above.
+   described above, with the "proposal" status.
+
+  <p>This specification does not define how new values will get approved. It
+   is expected that the Wiki will have a community that addresses this.
 
   <h4 id=image><span class=secno>4.5.4. </span>Image maps</h4>
 

source

@@ -13887,15 +13887,58 @@ mpt says:
    be synonyms, they are only intended to allow user agents to support
    legacy content.</p></dd>
 
+
+   <dt>Status</dt>
+
+   <dd>
+
+    <p>One of the following:</p>
+
+    <dl>
+
+     <dt>Proposal</dt>
+
+     <dd>The keyword has not received wide peer review and
+     approval. It is included for completeness because pages use the
+     keyword. Pages should not use the keyword.</dd>
+
+     <dt>Accepted</dt>
+
+     <dd>The keyword has received wide peer review and approval. It
+     has a specification that unambiguously defines how to handle
+     pages that use the keyword, including when they use them in
+     incorrect ways. Pages may use the keyword.</dd>
+
+     <dt>Rejected</dt>
+
+     <dd>The keyword has received wide peer review and it has been
+     found to have significant problems. Pages must not use the
+     keyword. When a keyword has this status, the "</dd>
+
+    </dl>
+
+    <p>If a keyword is added with the "proposal" status and found to
+    be redundant with existing values, it should be removed and listed
+    as a synonym for the existing value. If a keyword is added with
+    the "proposal" status and found to be harmful, then it should be
+    changed to "rejected" status, and its "Effect on..." information
+    should be changed accordingly.</p>
+
+   </dd>
+
   </dl>
 
   <p>Conformance checkers must use the information given on the WHATWG
   Wiki RelExtensions page to establish if a value not explicitly
   defined in this specification is allowed or not. When an author uses
   a new type not defined by either this specification or the Wiki
   page, conformance checkers should offer to add the value to the
-  Wiki, with the details described above.</p>
+  Wiki, with the details described above, with the "proposal"
+  status.</p>
 
+  <p>This specification does not define how new values will get
+  approved. It is expected that the Wiki will have a community that
+  addresses this.</p>
 
 
   <h4>Image maps</h4>