- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:08:57 +0100
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
> >> 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.!* http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 15:09:38 UTC