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: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 01:27:49 -0700
Message-ID: <z2z63df84f1004080127rfec7b35bg803035536a1a7ac6@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:57 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> 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.
> And here is the diff:
> http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=4985&to=4986
> Is that an acceptable basis for an amicable resolution?

This still defines the .profile IDL attribute though. As stated, I
would be ok with this, but I would prefer to remove it entirely to
keep things from colliding with whatever the @profile spec defines.

/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 08:28:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:07 GMT