Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-82 profile-disambiguation by amicable resolution

On 29.04.2010 10:34, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 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?


   ", and would therefore not be supported in conforming implementations"

would address my objection.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 08:50:03 UTC