- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:20:33 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7862 --- Comment #6 from Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> 2009-10-21 03:20:33 --- (In reply to comment #5) > I think Manu has withdrawn the html@version proposal for now. Yes, although it causes problems for the XHTML+RDFa REC - I'll discuss this with the RDFa Task Force and see how they'd like to proceed. > I think making head@profile more conforming is covered by ISSUE-55 (though I > expect at least some would like it to be fully conforming, not just "conforming > but obsolete" as Manu proposed): http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/55 I have heard that some want it to be fully conforming, but it didn't seem like those were the majority. The discussion seemed that a majority of those that didn't want @profile to be entirely obsolete were fine with it being obsolete but conforming. > For <link rel="profile"> we could use input on whether anyone wishes to pursue > this further. I would expect the RDFa Task Force would want to pursue this route if @version and @profile in HEAD remained obsolete and non-conforming. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 03:20:37 UTC