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

Re: Design Principles

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 17:04:44 +0200
Message-ID: <4A1AB38C.4090106@gmx.de>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
CC: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> ...
> What I said above was based on the DC recommendations from 2008. The 
> data you are quoting doesn't even contain the newest DC-HTML profile 
> (from 2008). I have not studied what DC says about the requirement of 
> @profile in earlier specifications. However, I'll note that "DC" is the 
> recommended prefix in the 2003 profile [1].  I could not see that the 
> 2008 profile recommends any particular prefix.
> 
> As the new DC specification is taken into use, one should expect that it 
> will be more needed, as linking to DC profile in use is the only way to 
> distinguish between them.
> ...

Furthermore, there's RFC 2731 ("Encoding Dublin Core Metadata in HTML"), 
dated 1999, which used the same syntax, but did not require a profile 
attribute. RFC 2731 never was updated, so people implementing it may not 
be aware that DC has essentially obsoleted this spec (this has happened 
to me, so I posted at least an erratum pointing this out, see 
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2731>).

I understand that people will point out that this is evidence that 
@profile isn't needed in practice. On the other hand I would argue that 
a specification that failed to use @profile has been fixed, but that 
process of fixing it failed to make sure people know about it.

BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 15:05:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:03 UTC