- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:42:35 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, "public-grddl-comments@w3.org" <public-grddl-comments@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: >>> 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? > > Suggesting what? Suggesting to define alternate profiles, just for the purpose of adding support for GRDDL's transformation code discovery? >> 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. > > This seems unlikely, since HTML5 isn't yet complete, and so nobody should > be using it except experimentally, and HTML4 allows profile="". Add guess what? That experimental use has shown that the removal of profile breaks code, and people speak up. Sounds like your answer to that is: "come back when HTML5 is done". >> 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). > > The price of keeping it is not zero. Just look at the pain it has caused > the GRDDL effort. Instead of just automatically supporting all known The only pain I'm aware of is caused by the current spec not allowing it. > vocabularies, the GRDDL team has instead been misled into thinking that > having pages declare vocabularies is somehow better. I can be better, in particular when the community for the vocabulary is not large enough for standardizing in a global short-name namespace. > ... BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 12:43:16 UTC