W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: no change proposal for ISSUE-55, but a new plan for @profile

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 00:48:56 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f1002210048h461eea1el2034cb0d446748f0@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Leif Halvard Silli
<xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
> Maciej Stachowiak, Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:05:25 -0800:
>> On Feb 19, 2010, at 11:50 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> On 20.02.2010 01:00, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>> Thanks for the update, Julian. I think it would be acceptable to close
>>>> ISSUE-55 by amicable resolution, and put forward an extension spec for
>>>> @profile at a later time. Proposed new Working Drafts do not require an
>>>> open ISSUE. Question: does this same approach also apply to ISSUE-82
>>>> profile-disambiguation?
>>>> ...
>>> That's a good question.
>>> ISSUE-82 in turn is related to ISSUE-53. If the re-registration of
>>> text/html excludes HTML4 validity, then yes, HTML5 will not only
>>> need to make @profile conforming but also define it.
>> Let me be a little more specific. I am assuming that the separate
>> @profile spec will effectively define how profile may be used for
>> disambiguation. Do we also need a change to HTML5 itself, or to any
>> other draft? Or will this be covered  sufficiently by the new profile
>> spec?
>> * If we need a separate change to HTML5 for ISSUE-82 -- then we need
>> a Change Proposal.
>> * If we do not need a separate change to HTML5, and what the profile
>> spec says should be sufficient -- then we should probably close
>> ISSUE-82 by amicable resolution in the same way as ISSUE-55.
>> Which of these do you think is the correct way to handle it? I'd also
>> welcome input from Tantek, Julian, or anyone else. Here is a link to
>> ISSUE-82:
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/82
> Jonas said that he supports the new direction (with a separate profile
> spec) because it placed RDFa, microdata and @profile on the same level,
> so to speak. However, the spec doesn't say about RDFa or Microdata that
> user agents should ignore them. So I think that the spec must be
> changed from saying "ignore" to something else. Either to something
> "positive" but perhaps better to something neutral which leaves the
> details to a separate spec. I think that what Julian concludes in
> comment #9 of bug 7512 is pretty neutral.
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7512

For what it's worth, I'd be fine with removing any mention of the
profile attribute from the HTML5 spec. That would put it on equal
footing with microdata and RDFa, neither of which are mentioned in the
HTML5 spec.

/ Jonas
Received on Sunday, 21 February 2010 08:49:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:58 UTC