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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:15:30 +0100
Message-ID: <4B80EBA2.3030700@gmx.de>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 21.02.2010 06:05, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> 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.

Whether we need a change for HTML5 for ISSUE-82 depends on the outcome 
of the media type registration discussion. If the spec stays the way it 
is, we will need changes for several things valid in HTML4, but not 
valid in HTML5 (potentially many).

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 21 February 2010 08:16:21 UTC

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