- From: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 15:36:42 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On May 25, 2009, at 6:15 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > >> @profile is widespread amongst authors to the extent that Dublin Core >> is widespread. >> >> It is a specified MUST for for anyone using Dublin Core to use >> @profile [1]. Interpreting the DC properties as DC properties is not >> licensed without it [2]. It is not this working group's task to to >> "inform" the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative that they don't need it. >> In fact DC has two meta data profiles and @profile is needed to tell >> which one to use. So, as far as I am concerned, this principle has so >> far not had any effect on @profile, even though it should apply. > > If that's true, then probably the most applicable principle would be > "Support Existing Content." But I don't think we have evidence from the > above that profile is in fact used a lot. Sounds like it could be, > depending on how much Dublin Core is used and whether authors using DC > follow the profile requirement. http://philip.html5.org/data/profile-values.txt - looks like tens of people use @profile for DC. http://philip.html5.org/data/link-rel-rev.txt - looks like hundreds of people use rel="schema.DC". http://philip.html5.org/data/meta-names.txt - looks like thousands of people use <meta name="DC.*">. So, people don't seem to follow the profile requirement much. (Further interpretation of the data is left as an exercise for the reader.) -- Philip Taylor pjt47@cam.ac.uk
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 14:37:23 UTC