--- a/spec/latest/json-ld-api/index.html	Wed May 08 16:58:17 2013 +0200
+++ b/spec/latest/json-ld-api/index.html	Wed May 08 17:02:57 2013 +0200
@@ -930,20 +930,6 @@
               error has been detected and processing is aborted.</li>
             <li>If <i>context</i> has an <code>@base</code> key and <i>remote contexts</i> is empty, i.e., the currently
               being processed context is not a remote context:
-              <div class="issue atrisk" data-number="1" title="@base keyword">
-                <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is
-                  <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfi">"at risk"</a> and may
-                  be removed from this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
-                  <a href="mailto:public-rdf-comments@w3.org">public-rdf-comments@w3.org</a>.
-                  For the current status see
-                  <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk">features "at risk" in JSON-LD 1.0</a></p>
-                <p>Support for the <code>@base</code> keyword might be removed from JSON-LD 1.0 if
-                  implementation experience reveals that the fact that a document may have multiple
-                  base IRIs is confusing for developers. It is also being discussed whether relative
-                  IRIs are allowed as values of <code>@base</code> or whether the empty string should
-                  be used to explicitly specify that there isn't a base IRI, which could be used to
-                  ensure that relative IRIs remain relative when expanding.</p>
-              </div>
               <ol class="algorithm">
                 <li>Initialize <i>value</i> to the value associated with the
                   <code>@base</code> key.</li>

--- a/spec/latest/json-ld/index.html	Wed May 08 16:58:17 2013 +0200
+++ b/spec/latest/json-ld/index.html	Wed May 08 17:02:57 2013 +0200
@@ -795,21 +795,6 @@
 <section class="informative">
   <h2>Base IRI</h2>
 
-  <div class="issue atrisk" data-number="1" title="@base keyword">
-    <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is
-      <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfi">"at risk"</a> and may
-      be removed from this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
-      <a href="mailto:public-rdf-comments@w3.org">public-rdf-comments@w3.org</a>.
-      For the current status see
-      <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk">features "at risk" in JSON-LD 1.0</a></p>
-    <p>Support for the <code>@base</code> keyword might be removed from JSON-LD 1.0 if
-      implementation experience reveals that the fact that a document may have multiple
-      base IRIs is confusing for developers. It is also being discussed whether relative
-      IRIs are allowed as values of <code>@base</code> or whether the empty string should
-      be used to explicitly specify that there isn't a base IRI, which could be used to
-      ensure that relative IRIs remain relative when expanding.</p>
-  </div>
-
   <p>JSON-LD allows <tref>IRI</tref>s to be specified in a relative form which is
     resolved against the document base according
     <cite><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.1">section 5.1 Establishing a Base URI</a></cite>
@@ -3084,20 +3069,6 @@
     its value MUST be an <tref>absolute IRI</tref>, a <tref>relative IRI</tref>,
     or <tref>null</tref>.</p>
 
-  <div class="issue atrisk" data-number="1" title="@base keyword">
-    <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is
-      <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfi">"at risk"</a> and may
-      be removed from this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
-      <a href="mailto:public-rdf-comments@w3.org">public-rdf-comments@w3.org</a>.
-      For the current status see
-      <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk">features "at risk" in JSON-LD 1.0</a></p>
-    <p>This feature is at risk as the fact that a document may have multiple base
-      IRIs is potentially confusing for developers. It is also being discussed whether
-      relative IRIs are allowed as values of <code>@base</code> or whether the
-      empty string should be used to explicitly specify that there isn't a base IRI,
-      which could be used to ensure that relative IRIs remain relative when expanding.</p>
-  </div>
-
   <p>If the <tref>context definition</tref> has a <code>@vocab</code> key,
     its value MUST be a <tref>absolute IRI</tref>, a <tref>compact IRI</tref>,
     a <tref>term</tref>, or <tref>null</tref>.</p>