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

Re: Re-registration of text/html

From: Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:25:21 +0000
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <79331239-5364-45B9-8FD7-6D76A2A8F733@geekhood.net>
To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
On 10 Mar 2010, at 16:36, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> 
>> Isn't that statement true for the majority of existing usage of the profile
>> attribute? And therefore a SHOULD requirement is adequate?
> 
> If it's true for the majority implementations of profile attribute,
> then a MAY requirement is sufficient.
> 
> No reason to encourage (which is what a "SHOULD" is, an encouragement)
> breaking of existing implementations such as GRDDL processors.
> 
> MAY wording here also seems more compatible with allowing user agents
> to implement the HTML5 Profile attribute extension.

Is GRDDL supposed to work with text/html? The GRDDL spec seems to focus on XHTML. If it's for XHTML only, then it doesn't matter what text/html registration says.

Do GRDDL processors actually rely on profile attribute? 
When researching pages with microformats (on 'anecdotal' scale) I found that that few of them used profile at all, and some of them had irrelevant/invalid profile, e.g. XFN profile on page with hCard. In case of microformats I think that tool which respected profiles would be worse off than tool that ignores profiles completely (I don't know if that's true for GRDDL in general).

Are there conflicting vocabularies used in the wild that couldn't be processed correctly without disambiguation with profile? Couldn't <link rel=transformation> be used instead?

-- 
regards, Kornel
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2010 17:26:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:59 UTC