Re: GRDDL and HTML5

Ian Hickson wrote:
>> 2) Yet we want users to be able to specify their own profiles with their 
>> own GRDDL transformations in order to explictly license the extracted 
>> RDF and not force anyone to use any "default" transformations.
> 
> This isn't what profile="" in HTML4 is for -- at least, not if they are 
> using formats that do have their own defined profiles. For example, say 
> you are using hCard. You can give the official hCard profile, or, you can 
> give your own custom profile that happens to define a transformation that 
> is exactly like hCard's. But if you do the latter, you're not technically 
> using hCard, and people who are looking for profile="" declarations and 
> are _not_ using GRDDL will not be able to use your pages' hCard data.

That I agree with.

> Thus, I posit that 2) is a mis-use of profile="". Certainly, even if HTML5 
> had profile="", it wouldn't license the use of the attribute in this way.

I would be a mis-use. Is anybody actually suggesting that?

>> 2) For users who use @rel="profile", get the GRDDL transformation and 
>> then run it over the HTML5 DOM of the page. Minor change.
>>
>> What we need to know from *both* the HTML5 community is simple: is 
>> @rel="profile" in the spec, and does the community have consensus?
> 
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> That touches another issue: who owns the namespace of rel values? (for 
>> which there is not HTNL5 WG consensus either, as far as I can tell).
> 
> Nobody owns the namespace; you can invent your own value, and then 
> register it on the wiki:

Well, that's your opinion; there's no consensus in the HTML WG about 
that, nor between the W3C and the IETF. Many people have stated they 
prefer to use the existing IANA registry of Atom link relations.

>    http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions
> 
> I see rel=profile is already on the list. Personally if you want to use a 

It points to the definition of head/@profile.

I also note that none of the extensions has the status "accepted".

> ...
>> Unrelated to that: in case we could agree that head/@profile could be 
>> substituted by link/@rel=profile with the same meaning, why on earth 
>> would we then remove head/@profile in the first place? Why break it, 
>> when its functionality is actually used?
> 
> As Harry said, many people don't declare their profiles. So it shouldn't 
> be needed. The only case where something might be needed is where you want

Just because "many do not include" doesn't mean it's not used.  There 
may be code out there that you are not aware of (maybe behind firewalls) 
that you potentially break by disallowing the attribute. On the other 
hand, the price of keeping it is zero (or would have been, if we would 
have started with the existing HTML4 vocabulary).

> an explicit link to a GRDDL transform, just like one might link to a CSS 
> sheet. But this isn't a profile="" or rel=profile in the traditional 
> sense, and a custom value for GRDDL would be more appropriate.

That's what GRDDL calls link/@rel="transformation" (although qualified 
by the head/@profile="http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view").

BR, Julian

Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 12:09:38 UTC