- From: Tom Morris <tom@tommorris.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 14:34:45 +0100
- To: "Jim Jewett" <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, karl@w3.org
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:14 AM, Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com> wrote: > Karl Dubost wrote: > > Le 7 mai 2008 à 09:35, Ian Hickson a écrit : > >> Summary: profile="" doesn't work in practice so we have dropped it. > > > wrong. > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/prrequest > > As nearly as I could tell from their documents, they assume XHTML > rather than HTML. If you really need valid XML, then a I suppose it > doesn't matter what HTML says; a different or even custom namespace > would work. (And profile didn't even seem to be their recommended > method, though I'm not as sure on that.) > Profile is the recommended method for XHTML, and by extension HTML. For other XML dialects, GRDDL uses a namespaced attribute attached to the root element. Many GRDDL parsers run HTML 4 through Tidy or a similar library. > Is profile used consistently enough across documents that it is worth > specifying any particular behavior? > It has a particular behaviour already - GRDDL-based user agents can parse data from documents containing GRDDL profiles. I have put together a list of these: http://getsemantic.com/wiki/Profile_Attribute_Examples_in_the_Wild As has been said before, there is no reason not to keep the profile attribute in HTML 5. It doesn't break anything, and makes adding RDF-based metadata very simple. link/@rel='grddl-profile' is not a good solution since it breaks existing user agents which are expecting head/@profile -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2008 13:35:22 UTC