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: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:13:55 +0100
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100221091355101971.d85b80a7@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Maciej Stachowiak, Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:05:25 -0800:
> 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

Jonas said that he supports the new direction (with a separate profile 
spec) because it placed RDFa, microdata and @profile on the same level, 
so to speak. However, the spec doesn't say about RDFa or Microdata that 
user agents should ignore them. So I think that the spec must be 
changed from saying "ignore" to something else. Either to something 
"positive" but perhaps better to something neutral which leaves the 
details to a separate spec. I think that what Julian concludes in 
comment #9 of bug 7512 is pretty neutral. 

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7512
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 21 February 2010 08:14:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:14 UTC