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 10:49:19 +0200
Message-ID: <4BD9480F.9000502@gmx.de>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On 29.04.2010 10:34, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> 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?

Yes.

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

Removing

   ", and would therefore not be supported in conforming implementations"

would address my objection.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 08:50:03 GMT

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