- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:18:29 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Feb 24, 2010, at 12:30 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 24.02.2010 04:50, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >> On Jan 20, 2010, at 7:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >>> "Suggested replacement for head/@profile does not provide for >>> disambiguation" >>> >>> This issue has been open four months. Per the decision policy, at >>> this >>> time the chairs would like to solicit volunteers to write Change >>> Proposals. >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/82 >>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#escalation >>> >>> If no Change Proposals are written by February 21, 2010 this issue >>> will be closed without prejudice. >>> >>> Issue status link: >>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-082 >> >> We haven't heard from any volunteers and it's past the deadline. We >> will >> close this issue without prejudice tomorrow if we do not get any >> last-minute volunteers. > > This issue was discussed just a few days ago (see around <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0696.html > >). It depends on one of our perma-threads, the ownership of text/ > html, what it should say about HTML4, and the validity concept. > > It would be better to focus on these issues first, and then the > clean up dependent issues afterwards; thus I recommend leaving this > open for now. > > If you insist on having a Change Proposal sooner, I can try; but I > don't think it's a good use of our time right now. It's not clear to me how it depends on the other things you mention. Either there needs to be a change to the HTML5 draft for this issue, or there doesn't. This particular issue is about processing requirements, not conformance, so I don't see how it can depend on the definitions of conformance for either HTML5 or text/html. If there might need to be other changes for different issues, even in the very same parts of the spec then that is a separate matter. But we're not going to leave this issue open indefinitely without a Change Proposal. As I see it, here are the options: 1) Someone can volunteer to write a Change Proposal right now, and give a reasonable deadline by which it will be done. 2) Since @profile is going to be made valid and further extended in a separate draft, then the concerns of ISSUE-82 about disambiguation can be addressed in the @profile draft. We can do an amicable resolution on ISSUE-82 deferring to the separate @profile spec. 3) We can allow this issue to be closed without prejudice. This means ISSUE-82 by itself would not block progress to Last Call. But if you choose to produce a Change Proposal at a later point in time (perhaps because of the outcome of some other issue), then you would still be fee to do so, and it would receive due consideration. I would personally recommend option #2. I think if we are going to have a separate profile spec, then it there's no point mucking with the profile definition in the HTML5. The separate profile draft would automatically make this use of profile conforming in text/html so long as the profile draft is considered an applicable specification, whatever our IANA registration says. And changing the details of HTML5's processing requirements would not change. If anything, we should probably remove most of what HTML5 says about @profile currently. That being said, though, you are free to pick any of these above three options. Or let me know if you want to propose some other course of action in mind, so long as it does not leave the issue open indefinitely. Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 09:19:03 UTC