W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2010

Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-55 profile by amicable resolution

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:43:10 +0100
Message-ID: <4B85490E.2030409@gmx.de>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, www-archive@w3.org, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
On 24.02.2010 16:32, Dan Connolly wrote:
> I don't quite understand closing an issue with
> an expectation that more work will be done on it
> later.
>
> I took a brief look at the proposal...
> no change proposal for ISSUE-55, but a new plan for @profile
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0683.html
>
> I'm not persuaded that it's not cost-effective to just
> keep head/@profile in HTML 5. My position remains:
>
> let's keep metadata profiles (head/@profile) in HTML for use in GRDDL
> etc.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jul/0571.html
>
> I'm inclined to object to this CfC, but I'll stand by to learn
> a little more about the situation first.

Re-adding @profile as per HTML 4.01 (+ errata as described in the 
attachment) would work for me as well; and it would make it easier to 
resolve <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/82>.

A separate spec would then only be needed for additional features we've 
been thinking about, such as allowing @profile everywhere.

Best regards, Julian



Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 15:44:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:28 GMT