W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2008

Re: metadata content

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:18:22 +0000 (UTC)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0812241111240.24109@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > ...
> > > "In the XML serialisation elements from other namespaces whose semantics
> > > are primarily metadata-related (e.g. RDF) are also metadata content."
> > 
> > We can't say exactly that, because even in other serialisations (e.g. the
> > DOM), it's still true.
> > ...
> Since when is the DOM a serialization?

My bad. I mean in other representations.

> > I've added an example though. Let me know if it's clear enough.
> > 
> > > The case for the HTML5 variant looks more problematic, because currently
> > > the profile attribute is removed too, which had the capability to produce
> > > something like a defined subject-predicate-object construction together
> > > with meta elements.
> > 
> > You can still do anything, in HTML5, that profile="", as defined in HTML4,
> > allowed in HTML4, since we now allow registrations of meta names.
> But that's a central registry.

There's no burden to the registration (it's just a wiki), so that seems 
like an unimportant concern. People can also use URI-like names, or 
Java-like identifiers, to avoid clashes in general, which again makes this 
a non-issue.

> Yes, I know you consider this a feature, but there are lots of people 
> disagreeing with that.

There's also people who agree. Disagreement is not an argument. I have to 
pick one side when there are mutually exclusive positions. If there are 
actual problems, please feel free to raise them.

> > > What seems to be left for HTML5 is the a/link with rel="profile".
> > 
> > As far as I can tell, that would be as useful as HTML4's profile="", 
> > which is to say, not useful. Just use the features you want, without 
> > declaring that you're going to use them. If name clashes are a 
> > concern, use meta names that have domain components (e.g. 
> > "org.example.family.parent" or whatever).
> Again a recurring discussion: there's disagreement about whether an 
> ad-hoc syntax as the one above is sufficient.

There's disagreement, but as far as I can tell nobody has put forward a 
real problem with it.

> Other vocabularies use either URIs or URI/local-name pairs as 
> identifiers, and it's not clear to me why it would be good to invent a 
> new syntax here.

URIs are fine here too, if you don't mind the verbosity. (Beware that 
these values are case-insensitive, though.)

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 24 December 2008 11:18:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:40 UTC