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

Re: ISSUE-55: Re-enable @profile in HTML5 (draft 1)

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:42:45 -0700
Message-ID: <4AC068F5.5050408@w3.org>
To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi, Manu-

Interesting proposal.  Comments inline...

Manu Sporny wrote (on 9/27/09 5:03 PM):
> I volunteered for an action to produce a draft document that included
> @profile in HTML5:
>
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/144
...
> This is a very rough conceptual draft and thus we could end up adopting
> all of it or none of it. It attempts to find a delicate balance between
> the advice given via the HTML WG, WHAT WG, and RDFa TF:
>
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-epb.html
>
> I expect that there will be arguments around these concepts:
>
> 1. Whether or not we should make @profile obsolete but conforming (this
>     draft does that, as does the base HTML5 specification). We don't have
>     to obsolete it, though I think it would be a good idea.

You should add a link to the HTML4.01 spec, where it is defined [1], so 
that people not familiar with it can contextualize your changes.


> 2. Whether or not we should depend on <link rel="profile" href="..."
>     to specify profile relationships to the current document. GRDDL
>     and Microformats depend on either this or #1.

Those specs can also be updated if @profile is deprecated, obsoleted, or 
removed.


> 3. Whether or not we should obsolete @version. RDFa would like to keep
>     @version.

It doesn't make much sense in the context of your new definition to 
define a new syntax and then obsolete the attribute.  Then again, 
there's no reason that this should be in @version, rather than some 
newly minted attribute (or element?) designed for the purpose.


> 4. Whether or not we should adopt a new markup format for @version in
>     order to make language design easier in the future while also making
>     it easier for authors. This may address WHAT WG's issue with
>     @version.

The CDF WG defined a roughly similar mechanism for WICD accept headers 
[1], and one of the benefits was that it could potentially replace the 
currently suboptimal and corpulent accept headers.  You should think 
about that in this context.

If this takes off, it might be nice to be able to use it for SVG, 
MathML, and other rendering languages as well.

Regarding formatting, keeping it case-insensitive would be helpful.


> 5. Whether or not the world would be a better place if Kanye West never
>     rose to fame.

Yo, Manu, I’m really happy for you... Imma let you finish. But Hixie had 
one of the best HTML specifications of all time! Of all time!


> Feedback on the direction of the draft would be great. Fire away! *ducks*

Please don't use the "W3C Editor's Draft" graphic, W3C logo, or W3C 
copyright notice on documents not living on the W3C site and not 
produced by a W3C WG, and don't make claims of W3C patent policy. 
That's impolite.  If you need CVS access, that's open to everyone on the 
HTML WG, or you can simply remove those aspects and make a custom 
stylesheet.  I know you didn't mean anything by it, I'm just sayin.


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.4.4.3
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WICDFull/#identification
[3] Of all time!

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 07:42:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:49 GMT