- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:03:58 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Mark Baker wrote:
> On 7/16/07, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Mark Baker wrote:
>> > On 7/16/07, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> wrote:
>> >> If @profile is lost, and if @rel and @class are given a single
>> >> centralized repository with *no* way to extend HTML in a principled
>> >> manner, you are breaking decentralization of the Web, period.
>> >
[snip]
>
> "profile" was a fine idea, but I think the opportunity to use it to
> affect the scope of class (or rel or ...) values has long passed. Far
> too much software has been deployed which interprets these names
> without any knowledge of "profile" scoping (e.g. CSS selectors).
I would guess with the mobile web just taking off, and RDFa/GRDDL and
other profile-dependent technologies just being readied, that it likely
that the time of use for @profile and @rel may just be started as opposed
to "long-passed". Also, CSS is standardized, while @rel/@profile allows
one to use "non-standard" interpretations of these names.
> If you really want these names grounded in URI space, I think the only
> way forward is to bypass these legacy issues by starting from scratch
> with new attributes.
Then why not keep the old ones, i.e. @profile and @rel? What would "new"
attributes do? A rose by any other name would be just as sweet - so why
not call it a "rose" as opposed to an "emerose"? Making up new attributes
seems like it would lead to confusion and be even less acceptable to the
HTML WG. Could you explicate what you mean by "new attributes"?
thanks
> Mark.
>
--
--harry
Harry Halpin
Informatics, University of Edinburgh
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 03:04:01 UTC