W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > December 2007

Re: @profile is wrong solution for indicating that RDFa is present

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:18:18 +0000
Message-ID: <a707f8300712111518i2cb26c6fvdc73ff434cca5d57@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
Cc: "Shane McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Hi Ben,

> The @profile attribute is not specific to GRDDL, so reasoning based on
> GRDDL is not a sufficient enough reason to bring this back on the table.

That's right. All of my comments have been based on the meaning of
@profile, and not GRDDL.

We need to say what the document that @profile points to should
contain. Or even if there is no document at the end of the URI, what
would the URI represent?

In HTML, @profile indicates how to 'interpret' the values in @rel,
@rev, <meta> and so on. Although the mechanism is not very clearly
defined, the intent is.

But in RDFa we don't actually have any 'values' as such, so I'm trying
to see what exactly it is that we are saying when we put a value in
@profile. We're referring to an empty taxonomy? That sounds a bit like
a hack, just to get an indicator of RDFa's presence.

Any suggestions on how we should describe what we've put into @profile?

Regards,

Mark

-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 23:18:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:19 GMT