Re: Change Proposal for ISSUE-82 (Profile-Disambiguation), was: ISSUE-82 - profile-disambiguation - Chairs Solicit Proposals

On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:30 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Julian Reschke  
> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 07.04.2010 18:02, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>> Why not simply remove any and all mention of @profile from the HTML5
>>> specification? This way the separate @profile spec that is being
>>> developed (right?) has the freedom to define anything it wants. This
>>> would put @profile on par with RDFa and Microdata.
>>> ...
>>
>> I think the answer to this is that the spec still wants to define  
>> the DOM
>> IDL attribute (which I actually missed when I claimed that there  
>> was no
>> required implementation behavior).
>
> The *spec* doesn't want anything, it's just a document with no  
> intelligence ;-)
>
>> Thus, we'd still need:
>>
>> -- snip --
>> [Supplemental]
>> interface HTMLHeadElement {
>>           attribute DOMString profile;
>> };
>>
>> The profile IDL attribute of the head element must reflect the  
>> content
>> attribute of the same name, as if the attribute's value was just a  
>> string.
>> (In other words, the value is not resolved in any way on getting.)
>> -- snip --
>>
>> I'd be ok with this, avoiding misleading statements about what  
>> @profile is
>> for, and delegating the documentation to a proper spec.
>
> IMHO we can remove this part too. If really needed it can live in the
> separate @profile spec, but it seems to me that that spec should
> either define the property on all HTMLElements, or on none of them. If
> the latter browsers should remove the implementation of the IDL
> attribute. (This is something I'd be ok with doing in firefox
> experimentally to see if it would break any websites).

Indeed, Web IDL has various ways for a separate draft to define the  
IDL attribute.

I support the idea of removing all mention of profile from the HTML5  
draft in favor of the separate spec.

Regards,
Maciej