W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Change Proposal for ISSUE-82 (Profile-Disambiguation), was: ISSUE-82 - profile-disambiguation - Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 23:57:16 -0700
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <9754DFFA-D725-4A1E-9970-C9E883F6DC72@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 07.04.2010 18:02, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> ...
>> Why not simply remove any and all mention of @profile from the HTML5
>> specification? This way the separate @profile spec that is being
>> developed (right?) has the freedom to define anything it wants. This
>> would put @profile on par with RDFa and Microdata.
>> ...
> I think the answer to this is that the spec still wants to define  
> the DOM IDL attribute (which I actually missed when I claimed that  
> there was no required implementation behavior).
> Thus, we'd still need:
> -- snip --
> [Supplemental]
> interface HTMLHeadElement {
>           attribute DOMString profile;
> };
> The profile IDL attribute of the head element must reflect the  
> content attribute of the same name, as if the attribute's value was  
> just a string. (In other words, the value is not resolved in any way  
> on getting.)
> -- snip --
> I'd be ok with this, avoiding misleading statements about what  
> @profile is for, and delegating the documentation to a proper spec.

I asked Ian privately if he'd be ok with this approach, i.e. remove  
the description of what @profile is supposed to be for or its intended  
syntax. He said he is ok with this, so I encouraged him to make that  
change in hopes that this can lead to an amicable resolution.

Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 06:57:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC