W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > July 2019

Re: [dxwg] Revisiting the definition of "profile" (#963)

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 16:04:08 +0200
To: <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0e4161f7-6c28-2517-8721-92b9b21105a8@few.vu.nl>

It seems that this message was sent only to the list an not github...

I think at the level of a definition we can give ourselves a bit of slack, and only refine later (i.e. in our guidance document) what are the possible "names" or identifiers and what level of mandatoriness we expect.

By the way I think what you outline in the second paragraph does not conflict with what is in https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/ (either as rather clean text or very drafty notes).



On 03/07/2019 19:21, Karen Coyle wrote:
> What is meant by "named"? Is a name the same as an identifier? The same
> as a title on a document?
> Note that we have stated that for content negotiation the resource MUST
> have a web-based identifier (URI/IRI). When a profile is a document
> (e.g. PDF) then I would say that it SHOULD have an identifier, but if it
> doesn't it does not cease to be a profile.
> kc
> On 7/2/19 2:29 PM, aisaac via GitHub wrote:
>> @tombaker I'm keen on "named" because this paves the way for URIs. And
>> it's a requirement we've identified, I believe.
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2019 14:04:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:18 UTC