- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 17:04:44 +0200
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- CC: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> ...
> What I said above was based on the DC recommendations from 2008. The
> data you are quoting doesn't even contain the newest DC-HTML profile
> (from 2008). I have not studied what DC says about the requirement of
> @profile in earlier specifications. However, I'll note that "DC" is the
> recommended prefix in the 2003 profile [1]. I could not see that the
> 2008 profile recommends any particular prefix.
>
> As the new DC specification is taken into use, one should expect that it
> will be more needed, as linking to DC profile in use is the only way to
> distinguish between them.
> ...
Furthermore, there's RFC 2731 ("Encoding Dublin Core Metadata in HTML"),
dated 1999, which used the same syntax, but did not require a profile
attribute. RFC 2731 never was updated, so people implementing it may not
be aware that DC has essentially obsoleted this spec (this has happened
to me, so I posted at least an erratum pointing this out, see
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2731>).
I understand that people will point out that this is evidence that
@profile isn't needed in practice. On the other hand I would argue that
a specification that failed to use @profile has been fixed, but that
process of fixing it failed to make sure people know about it.
BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 15:05:36 UTC