- From: tombaker via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 07:56:39 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@rob-metalinkage > Many documents that are called "specifications" or "profiles" actually contain a range of information, > and profiles may be defined within the same document that defines one or more base specifications. Saying that a "profile" is not a specification; that, rather, the "real" profile is a section (or sections) _embedded_ in a specification, seems like a non-starter. Putting the onus on communities to "unambiguously identify" sections of a specification, and even assuming that authors of profiles have a notion of conformance that can be so explicitly formulated, is simply unrealistic. One would have to tell alot of profile authors that the things they are calling profiles are not "really" profiles, or not "just" profiles, and that the "real" profile is actually just _a part of_ the thing they are calling a "profile". Is that your intention? If it is not your intention, may I suggest you use a word other than "profile" to describe what you expect. Redefining well-known words like "profile" to mean something much more limited and prescriptive than the general meaning is not a good idea. It is also not clear to me why such a requirement is needed for CONNEG, which uses URIs simply to indicate a preference among potential HTTP responses. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tombaker Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/990#issuecomment-510789277 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 12 July 2019 07:56:41 UTC