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

Re: ISSUE-55: Re-enable @profile in HTML5 (draft 2)

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:46:15 +0200
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DFF326DB-0E6A-4DB9-AECC-849E9DA7EC3E@iki.fi>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:53 UTC