W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: no change proposal for ISSUE-55, but a new plan for @profile

From: Krzysztof Maczyński <1981km@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 01:43:30 +0100
Message-ID: <AEDF4D36C2104A5D81BC830F87205285@kmPC>
To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Cc: "Toby Inkster" <tai@g5n.co.uk>, <public-html@w3.org>
>> 1. Is there a spec and support elsewhere than in the Microformats community for the idea that profile attributes may affect semantics of classes?
> If you hear of any please let me know. I believe microformats.org
> pioneered the use of formally globally shared semantics for classes
If I hear of any, as so far I haven't, I'm going to let you know.
I know the present majority view in the Microformats community is [1]. Despite this, were there (or are there still) any dissenters who raised concerns about crossing that bridge (use of formally globally shared semantics for classes)? I'd like to understand not only where we are but also how we got here.
As Toby wrote:
> @profile essentially assigns additional meaning to particular parts of
> HTML which would otherwise have no common semantics. (Their meaning
> would otherwise be private to the document.)
This was true about class names. I believe I can still keep it true in content I create by using RDFa instead of Microformats and possibly even formally declaring (e.g. with POWDER) that all classes therein are just that, in case I run into a name collision with some (maybe not even invented yet) microformat. It seems that in this case everybody can have what he likes without raining heavily on the others' parade. So let's live and let live.

> It would be useful for the specification to clarify which parts of HTML
> @profile may be used to establish semantics for, and which are beyond
> the scope of profiles.
> I'd humbly suggest that its scope cover at least:
>   @class
>   @rel / @rev
>   <meta name>
>   @data-*
@data-* is Ian's invention and he has some very specific ideas of what you're not supposed to do with them (as in MUST NOT). Of course we won't be sure until he speaks for himself but I believe the WHATWG's vision of @data-* is akin to mine (and (X)HTML's) of @class. I want to be able to exempt class names from being affected by profiles and those who prefer @data-* would likely think similarly for their case. I mean, everybody wants *some* mechanism of this kind at their disposal to be exempted or at least exemptable, right?

Back to your message, Tantek:
>> 2. Why would sections 2 and 3 be informative?
> That's a good question (request for clarification) worth a lengthier answer.
> Could you add it here?
> http://microformats.org/wiki/html5-profile-issues

Best regards,
Krzysztof Maczyński

[1] http://microformats.org/wiki/namespaces-considered-harmful
Received on Sunday, 21 February 2010 00:44:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:58 UTC