- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:13:02 +0100
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen On 09-11-04 09.34: > On Nov 4, 2009, at 06:18, Manu Sporny wrote: > >> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-epb.html [...] >> - Defining the new replacement mechanism for @profile as rel="profile" > > What problem does this solve? In short, I think it most of all is the result of an attempt to solve a conflict with Ian ... Even if it strictly speaking is a separate issue, I also think that @rel=profile intendeds to solve/clarify the "can there be more than one profile uri" unclarity of HTML 4. (The "significant profile" issue of HTML 4: "even though this specification only considers the first URI to be significant") > The reasons against @profile have been that the concept is flawed and > that even if the concept weren't flawed, having to make profiles apply > to the whole page is a flaw. How does recasting @profile into a <link>- > only rel value solve address either conceptual flaws or the > limitations in being able to scope profiles to only a part of the HTML > document? Good 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.)? Also: it has repeatedly been raised some conceptual points by some in the GRDDL/RDFA league in favor of <head profile="">, namely that the profile should be defined *before* the content of the web page is handled by the tool/parser/ua/etc. That objection is, in fact, related to the "significant profile issue". -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 15:13:43 UTC