- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:35:05 -0600
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, www-archive@w3.org, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 11:12 -0500, Sam Ruby wrote: > Dan Connolly wrote: > > I don't quite understand closing an issue with > > an expectation that more work will be done on it > > later. > > I'll be more than happy to assign somebody an action item that is not > associated with an issue. Based on prior correspondence, I suspect that > any or all of Manu, Julian, or Tantek would be willing to be assigned > such an action. > > The question at hand is whether this issue is a blocker and if so, is > anybody planning to active work on the issue. Brief history: > > 2008-06-26 Issue opened > 2009-10-09 Bug opened > 2009-10-20 Bug marked WONTFIX > 2010-01-20 Call for Proposals > > > I took a brief look at the proposal... > > no change proposal for ISSUE-55, but a new plan for @profile > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0683.html > > > > I'm not persuaded that it's not cost-effective to just > > keep head/@profile in HTML 5. My position remains: > > > > let's keep metadata profiles (head/@profile) in HTML for use in GRDDL > > etc. > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jul/0571.html > > > > I'm inclined to object to this CfC, but I'll stand by to learn > > a little more about the situation first. > > Are you inclined to write a Change Proposal? My message of July 2007 (cited in the issue description as well as above) is pretty clear about what I propose to change and why. Re-formatting it for the sake of process doesn't seem like a good use of anybody's time. Did the 2010-01-20 call for proposals note my proposal? . Let's see... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/1021.html No, it didn't. Grumble. I'm interested to read any justification for the 2009-10-20 WONTFIX. I don't see the bug in a few minutes of searching. While looking for it, I see Larry invited review from Dublin Core; it looks like they don't have a requirement for head/@profile in HTML 5: "There has been talk here (DC-land) of moving towards more strongly recommending RDFa as a strategy for HTML-inline metadata. Currently XHTML is the only option there. If profile is taken away, that might force the migration to happen more hastily." -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0576.html If there's no community depending on head/@profile in HTML 5, maybe I'll just let this go. > I'm quite willing to track actions, and blocking issues that are > actively being worked. > > - Sam Ruby > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 16:35:09 UTC