W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Re: head@profile: another dropped attribute

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 09:51:20 +0100
Message-ID: <498AA888.6040903@malform.no>
To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Robert J Burns 2009-02-05 06.53:
> On Feb 4, 2009, at 10:49 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Maciej Stachowiak 2009-02-05 02.36:
>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 4:20 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:

>> Assuming that there were benefit in going for <link>, could we include 
>> both @profile and <link> for ultimate compatibilty? Of course, that 
>> could be confusing. But what about this:
>> <head profile="html5-default-profile-URI">
>> <link rel="profile" href="realProfileURI" >
>> Explanation:
>> In HTML 4 the profile attribute is implied. Thus, there is always a 
>> profile - namely the default profile of HTML 4. Thus, at least per the 
>> letter, we could have said that the default profile for HTML 5 has 
>> moved the profile linking to the <link> element. Hence, we could have 
>> said that @profile was implied, but that, for compatibility, it was 
>> also permitted to insert the default profile of HTML 5 via profile="" 
>> and a specified URI. We could then limit the conforming content of 
>> @profile to just one single URI, namely the "super-profile-URI" of 
>> HTML 5.
>> Here also we are touching on the /concept/ of profile ... It would be 
>> beneficial to define what the default profile for HTML 5 is - that is: 
>> what it covers. I think we should at least say that it covers the HTML 
>> 5 link relations. But also other things.
> This sounds like a reasonable approach. Is there any reason we could 
> have both the HTML 4 and the HTML5 profiles unified into one profile 
> (different versions of the same profile, but where everything included 
> in the profile before continues to have the same meaning but with more 
> options) 

Indeed. If the default profile for HTML 5 was defined either in a 
separate spec or at least very specificly so that any mark-up 
language could use the same profile, then such a thing as 
rel=nofollow could have been added to HTML even if HTML 5 had not 
been thought of ...

Even the much debated predefined class names could probably have 
made its way to HTML 5 very easily if we linked these class names 
to a (default) HTML 5 profile. And, if we made it possible for 
other languages to link - implicitly or directly - to the same 
profile, then one could update HTML 4, XHTML 1 etc with same link 
relations and (eventually) class names and so on.

> In this way the attribute would continue to exist, but would 
> have a specific URI assigned to it (conceptually speaking since no one 
> would actually have to enter that URI ever into a document for that 
> profile to be assumed).
> For most authors the default HTML profile would be suitable and only in 
> exceptional cases would anyone need to change the profile to something 
> else. I also think this suggestion eliminates the need for a special 
> 'profile' rel value.
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 08:52:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:42 UTC