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

> >> 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?

If HTML5 hadn't removed head/@profile we probably wouldn't have this discussion.
> > 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.)

Yes, that would be better. But it's hard to achieve when there aren't sufficient extension points.
> >> 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?

The win is small, I can only think of:

- by using link/a/@rel profiles could be made scope. (needs work)

- it could be used outside HTML syntax (using HTTP link)

> ...

Best regards, Julian
DSL-Preisknaller: DSL Komplettpakete von GMX schon für 
16,99 Euro mtl.!*

Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 15:09:38 UTC