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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 01:34:57 -0700
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <8F3AFE0E-0C94-468A-8573-D6E2C27E1FE4@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Apr 29, 2010, at 1:13 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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.

It doesn't read that way to me, since it's a non-normative note. A non- 
normative note could not possibly constrain what extension specs are  
allowed to do.

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

Just to make sure we're perfectly clear on this: do you object to  
closing ISSUE-82 at this time?

If you do object, do you have a specific suggestion for what could  
address your objection?

Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 08:35:31 UTC

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