W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2008

Re: profile attribute and conformance [was: Comparing conformance requirements against real-world docs]

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:20:09 +0300
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <3511483F-5C6A-44E2-B496-D9BA05F14866@iki.fi>
To: Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>

On Sep 5, 2008, at 11:44, Toby A Inkster wrote:

> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> Only Strict eRDF is checked by default. "Strict Microformats" and
>> "Strict GRDDL" mean that the tool forces itself to not recognize  
>> class
>> and rel values if there's no profile URI. Since these are not checked
>> by default, the developer of the tool has to have concluded that it's
>> more useful for users of the tool to ignore the profile URI.
> Don't read too much into that. Consider it an application of  
> Postel's law - being liberal in what I accept from others.

What I'm reading into it is:
  * A prominent (the most prominent?) microformat-to-RDF converter  
ignores profile for microformats and rel=transform by default, so  
authors can have their stuff consumed even without the profile.
  * There had to be a reason for a presumably well-informed developer  
to do it this way instead of just observing profile by default and not  
sacrificing UI real estate for configuring the behavior.

Given that you are doing what you are doing (regardless of *why* you  
are doing it), what incentive is there for authors to use profile?  
What do they gain if they use it? What incentive is there for the  
users of your software to change the default settings?

Have you analyzed your logs to see if your users do change the  
defaults often?

> Overall, a method for pages to link to metadata profiles is needed  
> by HTML.

How does this follow?

Henri Sivonen
Received on Sunday, 7 September 2008 13:20:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:38 UTC