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

Re: no change proposal for ISSUE-55, but a new plan for @profile

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:05:25 -0800
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <8EC4F3EE-ACEB-4F48-999C-6E6F961A2256@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Feb 19, 2010, at 11:50 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 20.02.2010 01:00, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the update, Julian. I think it would be acceptable to  
>> close
>> ISSUE-55 by amicable resolution, and put forward an extension spec  
>> for
>> @profile at a later time. Proposed new Working Drafts do not  
>> require an
>> open ISSUE. Question: does this same approach also apply to ISSUE-82
>> profile-disambiguation?
>> ...
>
> That's a good question.
>
> ISSUE-82 in turn is related to ISSUE-53. If the re-registration of  
> text/html excludes HTML4 validity, then yes, HTML5 will not only  
> need to make @profile conforming but also define it.

Let me be a little more specific. I am assuming that the separate  
@profile spec will effectively define how profile may be used for  
disambiguation. Do we also need a change to HTML5 itself, or to any  
other draft? Or will this be covered  sufficiently by the new profile  
spec?

* If we need a separate change to HTML5 for ISSUE-82 -- then we need a  
Change Proposal.
* If we do not need a separate change to HTML5, and what the profile  
spec says should be sufficient -- then we should probably close  
ISSUE-82 by amicable resolution in the same way as ISSUE-55.

Which of these do you think is the correct way to handle it? I'd also  
welcome input from Tantek, Julian, or anyone else. Here is a link to  
ISSUE-82:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/82

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Sunday, 21 February 2010 05:05:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:02 GMT