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

Julian Reschke On 09-11-04 15.25:

> Henri Sivonen wrote:


>> 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?
> 
> Well, that's a separate question. And I do agree that if we
> change the syntax, it would be a good thing to also make it
> more useful, such as allowing to scope a profile declaration.

What do you mean by "scoping"? Is the fact that HTML 4 defines 
that the first URI of the @profile attribute is the "significant" 
one an example of scoping?

And in that regard: A complete switch to @rel=profile seems to me 
to take away the feature that one of the profile URIs is the 
"significant" one.

I would like to suggest that @profile is kept fully valid and that 
it is said to contain the significant profile. The significant 
profile may (re)define/require additional profiles (see below) as 
part of its own profile. Thus, if you want to mark the document as 
"my kind of html", then you should use @profile.

Possible other profiles URIs inside @profile, as well as profile 
URIs found inside @rel=profile, could define *additional* 
profiles. A document is not required to have a significant 
profile. If the document only has additional profiles, then these 
profiles just adds to the default profile of HTML 5 (meaning that 
they cannot for instance override HTML 5's predefined rel keywords 
mean). Whereas, if there is a significant profile, then the 
additional profile formally adds to *that* profile.
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 15:17:08 UTC