- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 09:51:20 +0100
- To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Robert J Burns 2009-02-05 06.53: > On Feb 4, 2009, at 10:49 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> Maciej Stachowiak 2009-02-05 02.36: >>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 4:20 PM, Larry Masinter wrote: >> Assuming that there were benefit in going for <link>, could we include >> both @profile and <link> for ultimate compatibilty? Of course, that >> could be confusing. But what about this: >> >> <head profile="html5-default-profile-URI"> >> <link rel="profile" href="realProfileURI" > >> >> Explanation: >> In HTML 4 the profile attribute is implied. Thus, there is always a >> profile - namely the default profile of HTML 4. Thus, at least per the >> letter, we could have said that the default profile for HTML 5 has >> moved the profile linking to the <link> element. Hence, we could have >> said that @profile was implied, but that, for compatibility, it was >> also permitted to insert the default profile of HTML 5 via profile="" >> and a specified URI. We could then limit the conforming content of >> @profile to just one single URI, namely the "super-profile-URI" of >> HTML 5. >> >> Here also we are touching on the /concept/ of profile ... It would be >> beneficial to define what the default profile for HTML 5 is - that is: >> what it covers. I think we should at least say that it covers the HTML >> 5 link relations. But also other things. > > This sounds like a reasonable approach. Is there any reason we could > have both the HTML 4 and the HTML5 profiles unified into one profile > (different versions of the same profile, but where everything included > in the profile before continues to have the same meaning but with more > options) Indeed. If the default profile for HTML 5 was defined either in a separate spec or at least very specificly so that any mark-up language could use the same profile, then such a thing as rel=nofollow could have been added to HTML even if HTML 5 had not been thought of ... Even the much debated predefined class names could probably have made its way to HTML 5 very easily if we linked these class names to a (default) HTML 5 profile. And, if we made it possible for other languages to link - implicitly or directly - to the same profile, then one could update HTML 4, XHTML 1 etc with same link relations and (eventually) class names and so on. > In this way the attribute would continue to exist, but would > have a specific URI assigned to it (conceptually speaking since no one > would actually have to enter that URI ever into a document for that > profile to be assumed). > > For most authors the default HTML profile would be suitable and only in > exceptional cases would anyone need to change the profile to something > else. I also think this suggestion eliminates the need for a special > 'profile' rel value. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 08:52:05 UTC