W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2009

Re: thoughts on @profile (ISSUE-55)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 15:50:03 +0200
Message-ID: <4A16AD8B.1040507@gmx.de>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On May 22, 2009, at 15:54, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> 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.
> Do existing RFC 2731 or DC-HTML consumers actually do prefix-based 
> indirection with scheme and refuse to work without profile or do they 
> just hard-code strings like "dc.title" and ignore both profile and scheme?

I once wrote a RFC2731-based consumer (it's in an SAP product), which 
relies on the prefix indirection (@profile is not used in RFC 2731, this 
was introduced in DC-HTML later on).

>> 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.
> My understanding is that stuff like rel=license, rel=nofollow and 
> rel=prefetch work where supported regardless of profiles.

I agree with that.

So, in practice, new rel values can be introduced without profiles, even 
though a few people claim the contrary :-).

BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 13:50:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:47 UTC