- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:49:19 +0200
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
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? Yes. > If you do object, do you have a specific suggestion for what could > address your objection? Removing ", 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