Re: Change Proposal for ISSUE-82 (Profile-Disambiguation), was: ISSUE-82 - profile-disambiguation - Chairs Solicit Proposals

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:

Is that an acceptable basis for an amicable resolution?


Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 07:03:28 UTC