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

Indeed I have no intent to expand the functionality of the profile attribute beyond what is minimally needed for locally scoped follow-your-nose functionality for microformats (class and rel effectively, rev being deprecated), RDFa, and potentially microdata as well.

In short, nothing for meta name (invisible data antipattern), and nothing for data-* which is not intended for use as shared vocabulary (as far as I can tell from reading the spec).

If there are any objections to this explicit limitation of scope, please note on the issues page[1], and please include non-tautological real world use cases that substantiate any request for expansions of scope.




-----Original Message-----
From: "Tab Atkins Jr." <>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 00:32:00 
To: Krzysztof Maczyński<>
Cc: Tantek Çelik<>; Toby Inkster<>; <>
Subject: Re: no change proposal for ISSUE-55, but a new plan for @profile

2010/2/20 Krzysztof Maczyński <>:
> @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?

Yes, data-* is very specifically supposed to carry *no* semantics and
*not* be useful outside of the page it's written on.  It's nothing
more than an officially blessed way for scripts to embed data they
need directly in the page and have a convenient method of access to


Received on Sunday, 21 February 2010 08:42:26 UTC