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

Re: [dxwg] Differentiating Functional & Data Profiling in Conneg (#1022)

From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 21:16:32 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-533711569-1569014191-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
@rob-metalinkage the hyperlink issue I've mentioned was 24 days ago. See how the anchor for "profile" is actually the definition for "data profile" in this one, 20 days ago:
I see indeed it's been fixed by generalizing the definition, i.e. removing "data" from it, at
which was merged 18 days ago.
But if no one has told it to me, how can I withdraw my comment? 
Anyway, this problem's over now, nicely lumped into the discussion on the generalization of the definition for data profiles.

So on to more recent messages...
I think the re-ordering of sections could help (maybe putting 2.1 at the beginning of section 7?). 
Again I'm not so much worried by "data profile" vs "content profile". I was reacting to @rob-metalinkage about the fact that they are equivalent. I disagree, but anyway I believe that readers could get their away across that. My real worry if they're exposed to another notion of profile, then it will be harder for them.

Note that I still don't think the definition that the WG has agreed to should have been changed. This will lead to another round of discussions, and confusions across our deliverable. Especially if it's not needed. As said I'm fine with not making a distinction between content profiles and data profile. So the definition for data profiles could be used as the main reference for profiles in the spec if this was the only possible confusion...

Wrt "functional profiles", I can return part of Rob's argument: the insistence that profiles include functional profiles may be correct (I have my doubts but I'm ready to accept there are points in favour of it) but it's not necessarily helpful, as it's confusing for the reader, and our WG that has agreed on a different definition will find it hard to see that definition changed again. And I can argue it's not relevant to the specification, in the sense that the spec can work very well without it. Some time ago, it was using the term "realization" and it worked just as well from the technical standpoint. The word "method" is still used in the introduction (https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/conneg-by-ap/#introduction) and I still it could also be a valid alternative.

GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1022#issuecomment-533711569 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 20 September 2019 21:16:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:20 UTC