W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2010

Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-55 profile by amicable resolution

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:45:27 -0600
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, www-archive@w3.org, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <1267109127.30230.279.camel@pav.lan>
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 21:11 -0500, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 02/24/2010 11:35 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > "There has been talk here (DC-land) of
> > moving towards more strongly recommending RDFa as a strategy for
> > HTML-inline metadata. Currently XHTML is the only option there. If
> > profile is taken away, that might force the migration to happen more
> > hastily."
> >  -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0576.html
> > 
> > If there's no community depending on head/@profile in HTML 5, maybe
> > I'll just let this go.
> Hi Dan,
> Just wanted to clarify a couple of things in this discussion because I
> don't want us to lose sight of the significant event that just occurred.
> I think the situation is that there could be two, if not three metadata
> communities that would love to see this @profile-everywhere proposal
> succeed in HTML WG.
> The @profile proposal that Julian, Tantek and I are proposing would
> achieve several long-standing goals:
> - Preserve @profile on <HEAD> in HTML5 (for GRDDL and Dublin Core
>   legacy documents).
> - Clarify the HTML4.01 definition of @profile with a number of errata
>   that is already authored. (to ensure there is no mistake on how to
>   use @profile in HTML5).
> - Enable the use of @profile on all elements (which does have support
>   in both the Microformats community /and/ the RDFa community).
> Tantek outlined how this @profile proposal would lead to a more
> follow-your-nose-ish version of Microformats, which is a very good
> thing. The RDFa community has also discussed how this new mechanism
> could replace (in a very good way) a number of mechanisms that are
> currently being proposed for RDFa 1.1.
> All this with very minimal effort, AFAICT. I've committed to editing the
> HTML WG FPWD of the HTML5 Metadata Profiles spec. Are there concerns of
> yours that extend past what I've said above?

Technically, I need to think thru this on-all-elements stuff, but
my main concern is: closing an issue means "we're done; we don't
plan to work on it more unless/until somebody brings up information
that we haven't considered." But you clearly plan to work on it more,
based on information that you _have_ considered. I can't make
sense of that.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 14:45:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:37 UTC