W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: no change proposal for ISSUE-55, but a new plan for @profile

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:30:10 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: tantek@cs.stanford.edu, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Krzysztof MaczyƄski <1981km@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100221153010483789.28291fd9@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Julian Reschke, Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:52:27 +0100:
> On 21.02.2010 09:42, Tantek Celik wrote:
>> Indeed I have no intent to expand the functionality of the profile 
>> attribute beyond what is minimally needed for locally scoped 
>> follow-your-nose functionality for microformats (class and rel 
>> effectively, rev being deprecated), RDFa, and potentially microdata 
>> as well.
> 
> I think we need to include DC-HTML, and eRDF.
> 
>> In short, nothing for meta name (invisible data antipattern), and 
>> nothing for data-* which is not intended for use as shared 
>> vocabulary (as far as I can tell from reading the spec).
> 
> ...which *does* mean that meta/@name needs to be included.
> 
> I understand the antipattern argument, but that's orthogonal to the 
> definition of @profile.
> 
> I agree with the part about data-*.

So then we are at least two persons that think data-* *should* be 
included.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 21 February 2010 14:30:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:02 GMT