W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2007

Re: microformats, profiles, and taking back rel/class names [standardizedFieldValues-51]

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:35:05 -0400
Message-ID: <469D8A69.5040506@ibiblio.org>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>

Mark Baker wrote:
> On 7/17/07, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> wrote:
>> So inventing *two* new things, i.e. a new attribute and a new element,
>> is superior than simply using @profile as it stands in the header in
>> HTML 4 and *maybe* expanding it to work off an existing class element?
> Yes, I believe so.  I'm all for extending existing mechanisms when the
> extension won't break backwards compatibility (i.e. where existing
> clients won't misinterpret the meaning of the document).  But the
> change you're suggesting would confuse them, as I believe I
> demonstrated with my last example.
I have to disagree respectfully.  What precisely is confusing with the
last example and how does it break backward compatibility?

Perhaps I am missing something, but I find introducing new elements and
attributes with the same semantics and behavior as previously defined
elements confusing.

However, regardless it seems there is, at least on www-tag, no argument
about the utility of @profile (or, if one dislikes the string "profile",
@profile2), although there is argument on whether or not it should be
extended and precisely how.  Any other opinions on the issue?
> Mark.


Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 03:36:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:52 UTC