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

Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-82 profile-disambiguation by amicable resolution

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:13:24 +0200
Message-ID: <4BD93FA4.1020906@gmx.de>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On 29.04.2010 06:24, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 12:24 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Apr 20, 2010, at 11:44 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21.04.2010 08:33, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>>> Right, but DOM Level 2 HTML did include it.
>>>>
>>>> I do not disagree with the statement that's left, but now it really
>>>> lacks context; it's a "Note:" without any text it refers to. Maybe one
>>>> sentence needs to be added stating what you just said.
>>>
>>> If this isn't a blocker for ISSUE-82, perhaps that could be a separate
>>> bug as well? I'm willing to file it, it does seem worth clarifying that
>>> the note is there because attribute was in previous specs.
>>
>> As much as I'd like to close ISSUE-82, this is really a problem caused
>> by the suggested change. We really should fix it.
>>
>> So *if* we have consensus that the spec doesn't define the IDL
>> attribute we consequently should also drop comments about it (yes, I
>> just changed my mind on that).
>
> Julian, based on the more recent comments on this thread, do you still
> think this needs to be changed? Do you object to closing ISSUE-82 at
> this time? (This point seems at best tangential to the original issue,
> so I'd rather not block the ISSUE-82 resolution on it, but it's up to you.)

In the meantime the spec has changed under us; it would have been nice 
to mention it in this thread:

"Note: The profile  IDL attribute on head  elements (with the 
HTMLHeadElement  interface) is intentionally omitted, and would 
therefore not be supported in conforming implementations. (It is 
mentioned here as it was defined in a previous version of the DOM 
specifcations.)"

That's better, but still confusing. It sounds as if an extension spec 
would not be allowed to define it.

I'd be in favor to fix this completely; otherwise we'll just have 
another bug, another issue, and another series of change proposals.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 08:14:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:08 GMT