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

Re: ISSUE-82 - profile-disambiguation - Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:18:29 -0800
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <2C0E9ADD-ABEA-4E31-AE5C-4877DFA92390@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

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  

Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 09:19:03 UTC

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