- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:02:07 -0700
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:57 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> On 07.04.2010 18:02, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Why not simply remove any and all mention of @profile from the HTML5
>>> specification? This way the separate @profile spec that is being
>>> developed (right?) has the freedom to define anything it wants. This
>>> would put @profile on par with RDFa and Microdata.
>>> ...
>>
>> I think the answer to this is that the spec still wants to define
>> the DOM IDL attribute (which I actually missed when I claimed that
>> there was no required implementation behavior).
>>
>> Thus, we'd still need:
>>
>> -- snip --
>> [Supplemental]
>> interface HTMLHeadElement {
>> attribute DOMString profile;
>> };
>>
>> The profile IDL attribute of the head element must reflect the
>> content attribute of the same name, as if the attribute's value was
>> just a string. (In other words, the value is not resolved in any
>> way on getting.)
>> -- snip --
>>
>> I'd be ok with this, avoiding misleading statements about what
>> @profile is for, and delegating the documentation to a proper spec.
>
> I asked Ian privately if he'd be ok with this approach, i.e. remove
> the description of what @profile is supposed to be for or its
> intended syntax. He said he is ok with this, so I encouraged him to
> make that change in hopes that this can lead to an amicable
> resolution.
And here is the diff: http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=4985&to=4986
Is that an acceptable basis for an amicable resolution?
Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 07:03:28 UTC