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

Re: Design Principles

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 02:23:11 +0200
Message-ID: <4A1F2AEF.5020503@malform.no>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
Jonas Sicking On 09-05-27 04.07:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no> wrote:
>> Jonas Sicking On 09-05-27 01.49:
>>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
>>>> Kornel On 09-05-26 16.06:
>>>>> On 26 May 2009, at 12:18, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

>>> So I definitely agree that the fact that UAs don't use the profile
>>> attribute does not make it a non-cow-path.
>>> The question is instead, do pages use the profile attribute.
>> That is only one of the questions (see above).
> The first two questions:
>>>>  * 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?
> Is it a cow path? I.e. are there enough pages out there that *uses*
> @profile (i.e. not just has something in the profile attribute)? For
> example I wouldn't think that a page with only hCard data, but with an
> XFN @profile counts as stomping a cow path.
> If @profile isn't a cow path the above question doesn't seem to apply?

You apparently did not understand what I said. At least you 
answered on the side of what I side. @profile is an attribute that 
links to /something/. That /something/ - profile pages - also 
exists and can be defined. Naturally there will be much fewer 
profile pages than there will be normal pages. A profile is just a 
URI that identifies a specification.

>>>>  * HTML 4 [snip] {uses 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?
> Again, is @profile="uri" a cow path? If not, the above question
> doesn't seem to apply.

The question here was the need to inform that your page is using a 
  particular profile. The only other method that I know about is 
to rely completely on heuristics and other code investigation.

It is a cow path on the Web - it is the essence of the Web - 
insert a URI as pointer/name/documentation of resources used.

>>  Also note that the design
>> principle talks about "consider cowpaths instead of inventing something
>> new". It doesn't say "consider if something is a cowpath, and if it isn't,
>> then consider dropping the feature".
> IIRC there is also a design principle that talks about solving real
> world problems.

Of course there is. Here I was looking at the "cowpath" principle, 
though because I claimed and claim that it has been misused.

> *If* @profile hasn't solved any real world problems in
> the decade that it has been deployed, I would think that we can claim
> that it doesn't fulfill that design principle.

This is not true. Profile solve a real world problem: Link 
to/inform about the profile you are using. The only other method 
that I know about is relying on heuristics and code investigation.

You can also look at the RDFa specification, for instance. It 
includes a @profile link as part of the specification [1].

It is said in the Design Principles that one should not use, as 
examples of "code in the wild", pages that are found in HTML 
tutorials, specifications, test cases etc. Such pages are not 
proof that anything is in use in the wild.

That is fine. However, since @profile and profiles represents 
/specifications/, we can, in this case not avoid looking at 

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014/#a_deployment
leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 00:23:50 UTC

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