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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:35:05 -0600
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, www-archive@w3.org, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Message-ID: <1267029305.30230.184.camel@pav.lan>
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 11:12 -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Dan Connolly wrote:
> > I don't quite understand closing an issue with
> > an expectation that more work will be done on it
> > later.
> I'll be more than happy to assign somebody an action item that is not 
> associated with an issue.  Based on prior correspondence, I suspect that 
> any or all of Manu, Julian, or Tantek would be willing to be assigned 
> such an action.
> The question at hand is whether this issue is a blocker and if so, is 
> anybody planning to active work on the issue.  Brief history:
> 2008-06-26 Issue opened
> 2009-10-09 Bug opened
> 2009-10-20 Bug marked WONTFIX
> 2010-01-20 Call for Proposals
> > 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.
> Are you inclined to write a Change Proposal?

My message of July 2007 (cited in the issue description as well
as above) is pretty clear about what I propose to
change and why. Re-formatting it for the
sake of process doesn't seem like a good use of anybody's time.

Did the 2010-01-20 call for proposals note my proposal? . Let's see...

No, it didn't. Grumble.

I'm interested to read any justification for the 2009-10-20 WONTFIX.
I don't see the bug in a few minutes of searching.

While looking for it, I see Larry invited review from Dublin
Core; it looks like they don't have a requirement for head/@profile
in HTML 5:

"There has been talk here (DC-land) of
moving towards more strongly recommending RDFa as a strategy for
HTML-inline metadata. Currently XHTML is the only option there. If
profile is taken away, that might force the migration to happen more
 -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0576.html

If there's no community depending on head/@profile in HTML 5, maybe
I'll just let this go.

> I'm quite willing to track actions, and blocking issues that are 
> actively being worked.
> - Sam Ruby

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 16:35:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:37 UTC