- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:00:38 +0100
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Toby Inkster, Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:13:43 +0000: ___ > Leif Halvard Silli wrote: ___ >> But thanks to HTML5's freedom w.r.t. where @id/@class might appear, >> then a perhaps more - as you said - "HTML-ish" (not to say >> "Twitter-ish") option would be this: >> >> <head > >> <link id=CarML rel=profile href=http://example.com/CarML/html5 > >> </head> >> <span profile="#CarML" class="Car">Mazda</span> > > I don't think adding an extra level of indirection would be especially > helpful. If it's supposed to prevent repetition, then perhaps my > original message wasn't clear enough. > > <html profile="http://example.com/CarML/html5"> > > would automatically license class="Car" and associated data-* attributes > to have their CarML meaning everywhere in the document. So repetition of > the profile is rarely needed. OK, I see your point! But let's say that CarML was more all encompassing than I wanted. For example, let's say that it contains "Colour", but that I do not want that each time I use "Colour" within my document, then an application which supports CarML, will interpret it as if I meant "Colour" as defined in CarML. Let's say that all I wanted to use was the element "Car". So, instead of the indirection, perhaps pointing only to the fragment "#Car" within the CarML spec could have the desired effect?: <html profile="http://example.com/CarML/html5#Car"> Meaning that if I wanted to use "Car" and "Brand" only, I could would use several profiles: <html profile="http://example.com/CarML/html5#Car http://example.com/CarML/html5#Brand"> ? Or if the CarML spec was sectioned so I could pick just "Car" and "Brand" with one URI, then this: <html profile="http://example.com/CarML/html5#Car+Brand"> (Or, perhaps a certain URI design - such as the one above [profile="http://example.com/CarML/html5#Car+Brand] - could mean that actual sectioning would not be necessary?) This proposal would also affect what we discussed here: ___ >> I think - when necessary - to separate "Car" from CarML and "Car" from >> MyML, there should be some prefix option. I don't know, but perhaps >> simply like this: ? ___ > There are three situations you could be in when attempting to mix > otherspecs: > > 1. One otherspec defines class="Car" and the second otherspec doesn't > define any meaning for class="Car" at all. In this case, user agents > implementing the first otherspec will understand it and user agents > implementing the second will ignore it. No problem. > > 2. Both otherspecs define class="Car" in such a way that (for your own > use case at least) they are equivalent. In which case: > > <html profile="http://example.com/CarML/html5 > http://example.com/MyML/html5"> > ... <span class="Car">Mazda</span> ... > </html> > > Should just work in both otherspecs. No problem. > > 3. Both otherspecs define class="Car", but with conflicting > interpretations. In this case, it is impossible to apply both otherspecs > to the same HTML node. This does cause a problem: scoping the profile > attribute can usually help here, but at other times, you'll just have to > drop compliance with one of the otherspecs. For 3), if the document needs to use "Car" from both specs, then indeed it would be a problem, whenever scoping for some reason would impossible to use - but I agree that we'll just have to live with that problem. But if you would only need to use "Car" from the one spec, then I think a profile URI which pointed to a seciton of MyML which did not contain "Car", could be an option. Thoughts? > Philip Jägenstedt wrote: >> I don't think this is a very good idea, as data-* are always hidden >> and not suitable for marking up content that is visible in the page. > > You are mistaking my proposal for a method of embedding data into a > document. The proposal is not intended for embedding the kind of data > that Microdata or RDFa embed; rather it's a general purpose extension > point that other standards ("otherspecs") could use. +1 -- leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 17:16:43 UTC