- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:16:33 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
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