- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:46:15 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Nov 4, 2009, at 16:25, Julian Reschke wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: >> ... >>> - Defining the new replacement mechanism for @profile as >>> rel="profile" >> >> What problem does this solve? > > It solves the same problem that head/@profile solves; What's the point of introducing new syntax if it solves the same problem as the old syntax? > it's an indicator that a certain extension is used. This is relevant > when multiple extensions occupy the same extension point in the > syntax. (I think a better solution is not occupying the same syntax as something else is occupying.) >> The reasons in favor of @profile have been that GRDDL (etc.) uses >> it already. How does introducing a >> syntactic transformation that isn't recognized by pre-existing >> GRDDL (etc.) tools help GRDDL (etc.)? > > It doesn't. Existing specs like GRDDL and DC-HTML still will have to > be updated. But at least now there would be something they *can* > transition to. Also do not forget that the proposal makes head/ > @profile conformant again, so there can be a transition period. So what's the win compared to not transitioning from @profile? It seems to me that if @profile is conceptually bogus, both @profile and rel=profile are bogus. If @profile isn't conceptually bogus, it seems useless to transition to a new syntax for it. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 14:46:57 UTC