Re: rel=type or rel=profile, issue 92

"Eric Prud'hommeaux" <ericw3c@gmail.com> wrote on 01/17/2014 10:45:25 AM:

> Apart from how we would best model types vs. interaction models, we
> are good netizens who use HTTP headers as the are intended, and
> rel=profile is intended to communicate the interaction model.

The fundamental question is (again) whether we agree that the interaction 
model isn't tied to the RDF data type and whether Alexandre's use case - 
allowing one to have a container that doesn't behave like an LDPC but a 
mere LDPR - is legit and should be supported.

If we don't agree with that - and Henry apparently doesn't - discussing 
how it should be supported is rather moot.

Given the amount of discussion that has already taken place over this 
question - this is just a new occurence, it's not really different from 
the discussion around mediatypes we had earlier on - I see little hope to 
get consensus on this unfortunately. It's like discussing politics or 
religion - people don't typically change their mind. Given how late we are 
already with regard to our schedule we can't afford to spend more airtime 
discussing this.

This leaves us with two options: 1) give up on supporting Alexandre's use 
case, 2) overrule Henry's objection and proceed, leaving it to him to 
decide whether he wants to file a formal objection.

Please, be prepared to vote on those options.

Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group