W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-comments@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: GRDDL and HTML5

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 19:18:15 +0000 (UTC)
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: public-grddl-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0808061907380.5136@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-08-03 at 22:02 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> >
> > This means that GRDDL can now be simplified to not require an explicit 
> > declaration of profile="http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view" before 
> > making the rel="transformation" keyword meaningful for GRDDL.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand...
> 
> I don't see "transformation" among the specified link types. 
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#linkTypes nor in 
> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions
>
> Does your suggestion presume that "transformation" gets added to 
> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions? (along with presuming that 
> the use of the whatwg.org wiki survives the HTML 5 spec review process)

Yes. Feel free to add rel values to that page. Since rel=transformation is 
already in a W3C recommendation, it has already passed the review process 
and can immediately be marked as approved.


> > It also means that GRDDL can be simplified to not require that 
> > transformations look for a profile="" before making the class names 
> > supported. For example, an hCard document now no longer needs a 
> > profile="" attribute declared, instead the class="vcard" keyword 
> > always has meaning.
> 
> Where is that stated in the HTML 5 draft? What I see says that the 
> meaning of class values is up to the author, not up to external 
> communities:
> 
> "Authors may use any value in the class attribute, but are encouraged to
> use the values that describe the nature of the content, rather than
> values that describe the desired presentation of the content."
>  -- http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#classes

This just says that values should describe semantics rather than style. It 
doesn't say that authors can't agree on a common vocabulary.

(HTML4 doesn't say that class attributes can mean anything either, nor 
that the profile="" attribute can affect the meaning of class="" attribute 
names, so this should not be any more controversial.)

Would it help the GRDDL community become more comfortable with not using 
profile attributes if there was some more prose on this matter in HTML5? 
What text would you suggest?


> > In the development of HTML5 we have made a simplification to the 
> > language that should help GRDDL usage be somewhat simpler: We have 
> > made the profile="" attribute on <head> unnecessary to declare new 
> > metadata keywords.
> 
> Please be clear who you're speaking for when you write "we".

I meant the HTML5 community.


> The HTML WG has not made a decision regarding head/@profile
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27

Fair enough. "We" can just be the WHATWG community then. :-)


> I gather you're speaking for yourself and your co-editor, Dave Hyatt.

I wish Dave and I could take all the credit for HTML5, but it really is a 
massive effort with input from dozens if not hundreds of people.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2008 19:19:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:55:03 UTC