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 05:23:05 -0700
Message-ID: <j2h63df84f1004080523o25e746f0l267476059d870dbd@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:51 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 08.04.2010 10:27, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>
>>> 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.
>> ...
>
> Well, even if a @profile spec wanted to define the IDL differently, could
> it?

Sure. The 'applicable specifications' extension hook lets you override
anything that the HTML spec says. You can't use WebIDL to say that a
property should be removed (the way you can use [supplemental] to say
that one should be added), but you can always just use prose.

> Personally, I don't see any need of specific DOM support at all.

Agreed.

Ian, what was the reason for keeping the .profile attribute in the
HTML5 spec? If implementations indicate that they are willing to
remove it, would you remove it from the spec?

I have a patch so I should have feedback in a few days weather there
are any major compatibility problems with removing it.

/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 12:24:05 GMT

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