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

Re: Change Proposal for ISSUE-82 (Profile-Disambiguation)

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 03:37:50 -0700
Message-ID: <z2w63df84f1004080337tc02e8997q5da68b00af34c300@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:30:58 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>
>> IMHO we can remove this part too. If really needed it can live in the
>> separate @profile spec, but it seems to me that that spec should
>> either define the property on all HTMLElements, or on none of them. If
>> the latter browsers should remove the implementation of the IDL
>> attribute. (This is something I'd be ok with doing in firefox
>> experimentally to see if it would break any websites).
>
> Would make sense to test that first before actually removing that part of
> the specification. That's how we usually go about removing features. If
> you're serious about testing usage of that it might be an idea to remove
> some of the legacy cruft too. I filed a bug on several browsers a while ago
> in an attempt to completely nuke <basefont>, e.g.
>
>  https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=518110
>
> Didn't go anywhere so far though.

Ask and you shall receive:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=518110#c2

Not that I really think that profile is related to that bug, but since
you complained and I always love removing useless code, it is now
done. If you know of more stuff that can be removed, don't hesitate to
file more bugs.

/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 10:38:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:16 UTC