- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 14:54:51 +0200
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > Björn Höhrmann's argument for not fixing the HTML Tidy bug is that HTML > 4.01 says "profile = uri [CT]", hence it must be meant "a single URI", > despite the fact the text of the following sentence directly says that > @profile may be contain several URIs. The issue was also debated in the > www-html list in 2006 [1], because Björn pointed out that the XHTML > working group, due some thought about using @profile as a identifier for > compound documents, had limited the @profile to only take one URI! Björn Interesting. Is this reflected in a *published* recommendation somewhere? > then pointed to the HTML 4 DTD and claimed that @profile always had been > limited to one URI: > > profile %URI; #IMPLIED -- named dictionary of meta > info -- > > Ian, in the same thread, replied that in HTML 5, several profiles was > allowed [2]. Tantek then explained that the prose of the specification > trumps the DTD (as DTD cannot express everything that is possible) [3]. For once, I agree with Ian and Tantek. > Björn H. repeated (amongst other things) his profile standpoint in > "Spidermann and the XHTML Kindergarten" last week [4]. And - regarding > our charter: the follow-ups from Philippe and Tim B. L. show that the W3 > are taking the issues Björn took up last week seriously and that they > are also are looking for feedback from the HTML working group on the > issues. [5][6] I appreciate that Björn insists on doing the right thing, and that his email has caused people to look closer at what's going on. > An errata that satisfies Björn H. would need an update of the DTD. The > fix would probably have to take "idrefs" (list of idref tokens) as > pattern and introduce "uris" (list of URIs) as one of the Basic HTML > data type in the DTD. Is that how you see it as well, Julian? Exactly. > Also, regarding the exact syntax, and since you mention namespaces > below: It has been pointed out that namespace declarations creates > warnings in HTML 4 validators.[7] Whereas adding a new @rel value does > not do that. So how about introducing namespaces for profiles? E.g. like > this: > > <link rel="profile xmlns:curie" href="profileURI">? RFC 2731 (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2731.html>) and DC-HTML (<http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-html/>) already define a different syntax for that; so; *if* we wanted to do that, we should consider just using that. > Or even like this: > > <link rel="profile:curie" href="profileURI">. > > After all, RDFa attribute values represents meta data. It seems logical > - and perfectly in line with HTML 4 - to link the meta data to a profile > instead of a namespace. A namespace represents another markup language > with its own meta data profile. But since, in the case of RDFa in HTML > 5, it is only the meta data profile we are after, then why declare a > namespace? It ought to be enough to limit the entire thing to a "CURIE > declaration" for the profile ... In recent discussions, the RDFa people claimed that non-registered link relations did not work in HTML 4.01 unless qualified by a profile; if there was agreement about that, RDFa would need that as well because of the use of CURIEs. > ... > Regarding not breaking other specifications, then HTML 5 also needs to > support @rev, even if HTML 5 itself does not embed a meta data profile > that makes any use of @rev. (Both HTML 4 and HTML 5 has a default meta > data profile.) E.g. in RDFa @rev is used because: > > "Having just one term to describe the relationship, > and reversing the direction by moving it from @rel to @rev, makes > vocabularies smaller and simpler." [10] > > Thus, to not support @rev, would mean that - unless the vocabulary is > extended to take care of HTML 5 specifically, the lack of @rev would > make it impossible to express the same RDFa things in HTML 5 as in XHTML. > ... Agreed, but that's a separate issue. (pick your battles...) > ... BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 12:55:38 UTC