- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 23:56:53 +0200
- To: Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
Kornel On 09-05-26 16.06: > On 26 May 2009, at 12:18, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> >>> 2.4. Pave the Cowpaths >>> = this to me also supports building on existing profile related >>> authoring practises such as microformats. Or is it only those >>> microformatters that do /not/ use @profile that represent a cowpath? >> >> While microformats claim to need a profile attribute in practice they >> do not use it I believe for consuming etc. The microformats points to /HTML 4/ which says that one can establish profile page URIs and link to them via @profile. The HTML 4 spec here presents /more/ than a mere attribute specification, it presents a "sub specification system". Where is the "claim" in this? Do you suggest that authors establish profile pages for describing meta data profiles, but that actually /using/ these URIs in order to inform what conventions that are being followed should be prohibited? This seems very contrary to what the Web is about. So the question is still /what/ in this is it that represents a cow path? * HTML 4 /has/ a method for defining meta data profiles: A single web page that represents the profile. Do we need to change that cowpath? * HTML 4 say that applies a URI, the most common cowpath of all, for pointing to the profile that is being used. Do we need another cowpath than a URI? * When you describe how some _User Agents_ do not use the URI for anything, then I think you are stretching the cowpath concept, cowpaths do not pertain to what User Agents do. > Indeed. When developing hCard validator (conformance checker) I've > noticed that few pages use profile attribute, and there are no hCard > processors that use it, so I haven't made that a requirement. I'm even > tempted to remove all warnings about it. If your validator wasn't a specialised hCard validator, you could have used 'hCard' as CURIE for 'http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-profile', internally. ;-) ** > I've also found pages that use wrong profile — most often XFN. As far > as I understand that would mean that hCards should not be processed on > such page, and profile support in that case would be harmful. I saw that your validator page uses the profile "http://www.w3.org/2006/03/hcard". We can at least say that /that/ hCard profile "licenses RDF data extracted by hcard2rdf.xsl from the 2006 vCard/RDF work." > I haven't implemented "proper" XMDP support. The goal of these > profiles is unclear to me, because AFAIK they're not namespace URIs, > but were supposed to be some kind of DTDs. However amount of > machine-readable information in XMDP is miniscule (list of names only) > and practically useless for Microformats parsing. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 21:57:34 UTC