Baumann, Brewka and Ulbricht recently introduced weak admissibility as an alternative to Dung’s notion of admissibility, and they use it to define weakly preferred, weakly complete and weakly grounded semantics of argumentation frameworks. In this paper we analyze their new semantics with respect to the principles discussed in the literature on abstract argumentation. Moreover, we introduce two variants of their new semantics, which we call qualified and semi-qualified semantics, and we check which principles they satisfy as well. Since the existing principles do not distinguish our new semantics from the ones of Baumann et al., we also introduce some new principles to distinguish them. Besides selecting a semantics for an application, or for algorithmic design, our new principle-based analysis can also be used for the further search for weak admissibility semantics.