- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 01:34:57 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Apr 29, 2010, at 1:13 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 29.04.2010 06:24, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >> On Apr 21, 2010, at 12:24 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >>> >>>> On Apr 20, 2010, at 11:44 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 21.04.2010 08:33, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>>>>> Right, but DOM Level 2 HTML did include it. >>>>> >>>>> I do not disagree with the statement that's left, but now it >>>>> really >>>>> lacks context; it's a "Note:" without any text it refers to. >>>>> Maybe one >>>>> sentence needs to be added stating what you just said. >>>> >>>> If this isn't a blocker for ISSUE-82, perhaps that could be a >>>> separate >>>> bug as well? I'm willing to file it, it does seem worth >>>> clarifying that >>>> the note is there because attribute was in previous specs. >>> >>> As much as I'd like to close ISSUE-82, this is really a problem >>> caused >>> by the suggested change. We really should fix it. >>> >>> So *if* we have consensus that the spec doesn't define the IDL >>> attribute we consequently should also drop comments about it (yes, I >>> just changed my mind on that). >> >> Julian, based on the more recent comments on this thread, do you >> still >> think this needs to be changed? Do you object to closing ISSUE-82 at >> this time? (This point seems at best tangential to the original >> issue, >> so I'd rather not block the ISSUE-82 resolution on it, but it's up >> to you.) > > In the meantime the spec has changed under us; it would have been > nice to mention it in this thread: > > "Note: The profile IDL attribute on head elements (with the > HTMLHeadElement interface) is intentionally omitted, and would > therefore not be supported in conforming implementations. (It is > mentioned here as it was defined in a previous version of the DOM > specifcations.)" > > That's better, but still confusing. It sounds as if an extension > spec would not be allowed to define it. It doesn't read that way to me, since it's a non-normative note. A non- normative note could not possibly constrain what extension specs are allowed to do. > I'd be in favor to fix this completely; otherwise we'll just have > another bug, another issue, and another series of change proposals. Just to make sure we're perfectly clear on this: do you object to closing ISSUE-82 at this time? If you do object, do you have a specific suggestion for what could address your objection? Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 08:35:31 UTC