html5-profile-issues - Revision history

Aaronpk: Replace with {{DISPLAYTITLE:}}

2020-07-18T16:28:13Z

Replace <entry-title> with {{DISPLAYTITLE:}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:28, 18 July 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~<entry-title>~~HTML5 profile attribute issues ~~</entry-title>~~		{{DISPLAYTITLE:HTML5 profile attribute issues }}
	__TOC__		__TOC__
	These are externally raised issues about the [[html5-profile\|HTML5 Profile Attribute]] with broadly varying degrees of merit. Thus some issues are REJECTED for a number of obvious reasons (but still documented here in case they are re-raised), and others contain longer discussions. Some issues may be ACCEPTED and perhaps cause changes or improved explanations in the spec.		These are externally raised issues about the [[html5-profile\|HTML5 Profile Attribute]] with broadly varying degrees of merit. Thus some issues are REJECTED for a number of obvious reasons (but still documented here in case they are re-raised), and others contain longer discussions. Some issues may be ACCEPTED and perhaps cause changes or improved explanations in the spec.

Komputist: /* 2010 */

2010-02-22T00:10:06Z

2010

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:10, 22 February 2010
Line 49:		Line 49:
	:[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0618 The original profile based distributed extensibility idea of Toby Inkster],		:[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0618 The original profile based distributed extensibility idea of Toby Inkster],
	:[http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/dom.html#attr-data data-foo="" in HTML5, including the ''space ship element'' example]: <div class="spaceship" data-ship-id="92432" data-weapons="laser 2" [ etc ]		:[http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/dom.html#attr-data data-foo="" in HTML5, including the ''space ship element'' example]: <div class="spaceship" data-ship-id="92432" data-weapons="laser 2" [ etc ]
	:For scripting libraries, then HTML5 recommends using a prefix (<code>data-prefx-attribute=""</code> to avoid clashes ~~- this~~ should be considered for the HTML5 profile specification also.		:For scripting libraries, then HTML5 recommends using a prefix (<code>data-prefx-attribute=""</code> to avoid clashes and should be considered for the HTML5 profile specification also.

Komputist: /* 2010 */ added 2 issues

2010-02-22T00:05:45Z

2010: added 2 issues

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 The [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0683.html message announcing the draft] indicates that sections 2 (“listing known HTML 4.01 errata regarding the profile attribute on the head element”) and 3 (“describing how this specification could be applied to both previous versions of HTML and XHTML, and other markup languages”) would be informative. I propose that the HTML WG consider making them normative.
 ** other [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0685.html relevant] [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0690.html messages]
 </div>
 </div>

Krzysztof Maczyński: grammatical correction

2010-02-20T14:44:17Z

grammatical correction

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:44, 20 February 2010
Line 30:		Line 30:
	<div class="entry-content discussion issues">		<div class="entry-content discussion issues">
	* <strong class="entry-title">Should sections 2 and 3 be normative?</strong>		* <strong class="entry-title">Should sections 2 and 3 be normative?</strong>
	The [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0683.html message announcing the draft] indicates that sections 2 (“listing known HTML 4.01 errata regarding the profile attribute on the head element”) and 3 (“describing how this specification could be applied to both previous versions of HTML and XHTML, and other markup languages”) would be informative. I propose that the HTML WG ~~considers~~ making them normative.		The [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0683.html message announcing the draft] indicates that sections 2 (“listing known HTML 4.01 errata regarding the profile attribute on the head element”) and 3 (“describing how this specification could be applied to both previous versions of HTML and XHTML, and other markup languages”) would be informative. I propose that the HTML WG consider making them normative.
	** other [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0685.html relevant] [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0690.html messages]		** other [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0685.html relevant] [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0690.html messages]
	</div>		</div>

Krzysztof Maczyński: status of sections 2 and 3

2010-02-20T14:41:38Z

status of sections 2 and 3

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:41, 20 February 2010
Line 22:		Line 22:

	This document is in the public domain. If the W3C HTML Working Group accepts to take on the proposal as a deliverable, should contributions from the Working Group participants expected to be in the public domain as well, or can they remain under the W3C Document license? As owner of [http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/29 ACTION-29] in the WG, I'm interested in gathering rationals in both approaches. -PLH.		This document is in the public domain. If the W3C HTML Working Group accepts to take on the proposal as a deliverable, should contributions from the Working Group participants expected to be in the public domain as well, or can they remain under the W3C Document license? As owner of [http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/29 ACTION-29] in the WG, I'm interested in gathering rationals in both approaches. -PLH.
			<div class="hentry">
			{{OpenIssue}}
			<span class="entry-summary author vcard">
			<span class="published">2010-02-20</span>
			raised by <span class="fn">Krzysztof Maczyński</span>
			</span>
			<div class="entry-content discussion issues">
			* <strong class="entry-title">Should sections 2 and 3 be normative?</strong>
			The [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0683.html message announcing the draft] indicates that sections 2 (“listing known HTML 4.01 errata regarding the profile attribute on the head element”) and 3 (“describing how this specification could be applied to both previous versions of HTML and XHTML, and other markup languages”) would be informative. I propose that the HTML WG considers making them normative.
			** other [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0685.html relevant] [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0690.html messages]
			</div>
			</div>

	== template ==		== template ==

Tantek: keep it consistent

2010-02-20T00:15:00Z

keep it consistent

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:15, 20 February 2010
Line 14:		Line 14:

	== issues ==		== issues ==
	<span id="Issues">Please add new issues</span> to the '''bottom''' of the list by copy and pasting the [[#template\|template]]. Please follow-up to resolved/rejected issues with new information rather than resubmitting such issues. Duplicate issue additions will be reverted.		<span id="Issues">Please add new issues</span> to the '''bottom''' of the list below by copy and pasting the [[#template\|template]]. Please follow-up to resolved/rejected issues with new information rather than resubmitting such issues. Duplicate issue additions will be reverted.

	===2010===		===2010===
	~~Please add new issues to the top of this list using the template below. Thanks!~~

	* Copyright statement - 2010-02-19		* Copyright statement - 2010-02-19

Tantek: /* 2010 */ noted date/source of issue, and kind request to use template

2010-02-20T00:14:01Z

2010: noted date/source of issue, and kind request to use template

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:14, 20 February 2010
Line 17:		Line 17:

	===2010===		===2010===
			Please add new issues to the top of this list using the template below. Thanks!

	* Copyright statement		* Copyright statement - 2010-02-19

	This is a request for clarification.		This is a request for clarification.

	This document is in the public domain. If the W3C HTML Working Group accepts to take on the proposal as a deliverable, should contributions from the Working Group participants expected to be in the public domain as well, or can they remain under the W3C Document license? As owner of [http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/29 ACTION-29] in the WG, I'm interested in gathering rationals in both approaches.		This document is in the public domain. If the W3C HTML Working Group accepts to take on the proposal as a deliverable, should contributions from the Working Group participants expected to be in the public domain as well, or can they remain under the W3C Document license? As owner of [http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/29 ACTION-29] in the WG, I'm interested in gathering rationals in both approaches. -PLH.

	== template ==		== template ==

Plh: /* 2010 */

2010-02-20T00:05:59Z

2010

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:05, 20 February 2010
Line 22:		Line 22:
	This is a request for clarification.		This is a request for clarification.

	This document is in the public domain. If the W3C HTML Working Group accepts to take on the proposal as a deliverable, should contributions from the Working Group participants be in the public domain as well, or remain under the W3C Document license? As owner of [http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/29 ACTION-29] in the WG, I'm interested in gathering rationals in both approaches.		This document is in the public domain. If the W3C HTML Working Group accepts to take on the proposal as a deliverable, should contributions from the Working Group participants expected to be in the public domain as well, or can they remain under the W3C Document license? As owner of [http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/29 ACTION-29] in the WG, I'm interested in gathering rationals in both approaches.

	== template ==		== template ==

Plh: /* 2010 */

2010-02-20T00:02:21Z

2010

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:02, 20 February 2010
Line 18:		Line 18:
	===2010===		===2010===

	* ~~none currently~~. ~~enter~~ a ~~new issue here~~.		* Copyright statement

			This is a request for clarification.

			This document is in the public domain. If the W3C HTML Working Group accepts to take on the proposal as a deliverable, should contributions from the Working Group participants be in the public domain as well, or remain under the W3C Document license? As owner of [http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/29 ACTION-29] in the WG, I'm interested in gathering rationals in both approaches.

	== template ==		== template ==

Tantek: drafted

2010-02-19T23:30:48Z

drafted

New page

<entry-title>HTML5 profile attribute issues </entry-title>
__TOC__
These are externally raised issues about the [[html5-profile|HTML5 Profile Attribute]] with broadly varying degrees of merit. Thus some issues are REJECTED for a number of obvious reasons (but still documented here in case they are re-raised), and others contain longer discussions. Some issues may be ACCEPTED and perhaps cause changes or improved explanations in the spec.

'''IMPORTANT''': Please read the [[html5-profile-faq|HTML5 Profile Attribute FAQ]] and the [[html5-profile-issues-resolved|HTML5 Profile Attribute resolved issues]] ''before'' giving any feedback or raising any issues as your feedback/issues may already be resolved/answered.

Submitted issues may (and probably will) be edited and rewritten for better terseness, clarity, calmness, rationality, and as neutral a point of view as possible. Write your issues well. — [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]

== closed issues ==
See: [[html5-profile-issues-closed]]

== resolved issues ==
See: [[html5-profile-issues-resolved]]

== issues ==
<span id="Issues">Please add new issues</span> to the '''bottom''' of the list by copy and pasting the [[#template|template]]. Please follow-up to resolved/rejected issues with new information rather than resubmitting such issues. Duplicate issue additions will be reverted.

===2010===

* none currently. enter a new issue here.

== template ==
{{issues-format}}

== related pages ==
* [[html5-profile]]
* [[html5]]
* [[xmdp]]