- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:57:30 +0200
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > ... > 5) People may think that it makes sense to allow legacy use and > processing of @profile, but not agree that HTML should have a versioning > mechanism. By putting these in one spec, we're forced to decide on two > completely separate issues at once as a Working Group, and anyone > deciding on which specs are applicable specifications (e.g. for purposes > of making a validator) is also forced to decide. I'm against sneaking in > versioning under the pretext of restoring support for a legacy feature. > ... Yes, that is a very real problem. > ... > I also think what this draft specifies for head@profile does not add > anything to what HTML5 already specifies, other than making it "obsolete > and conforming" instead of "obsolete and nonconforming". You don't > specify what values are conforming or what the processing requirements > are. The definition of the link type should be separate from that. > ... That is because it's work in progress. The end result (IMHO) should contain: 1) a statement what it is for (essentially a copy of what HTML 4 said + fixes) 2) potentially a proposed migration path to link/@profile. For *specifications*, not current documents, btw. 3) a short appendix clarifying that the description in 1) applies to HTML 4.01 as well (making it an erratum) BR, Julian PS: and yes, I volunteered to help but didn't provide much help yet.
Received on Saturday, 10 October 2009 09:58:15 UTC