- From: Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 19:07:16 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: José Manuel Cantera Fonseca <jmcf@tid.es>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote: > Elias Torres wrote: >> In short, I don't think profile urls work because not everyone uses them >> (point in case microformats). Therefore, to depend on it to find RDFa >> would be misguided. There are other practical issues, such as limited >> access authors/publishers that don't have control over the head section >> of the page. This violates one of our principles of copy and paste/drag >> and drop. It would require copying the profile and enabling on the page >> you pasted it, hence making it more cumbersome that copy and paste alone. > > That explains why not rely on a profile, > but it doesn't argue against providing one at all. Good thing you clarified that. So yes, I tried to summarize the reasons why we don't *require* it as best as I recall from my own discussions on this list with Ben/Mark/Steven. I did not shut the door on optional (it's not like I can shut any doors anyways). Maybe the question has always been for optional and not required and I just missed it. But if optional is what people want, I'm willing to support the discussion. In fact, count me in! > >> We have discussed this issue in the past so we should have it handy by >> now why we don't have a standard profile (maybe in the FAQ??). > > I was advised to watch issue 28 when I asked a related question. > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/28 > It's evidently still open. Good thing. -Elias
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2007 23:07:30 UTC