Re: @profile is wrong solution for indicating that RDFa is present

Hi Ivan,

> There is a very practical aspect of @profile that we should not
> underestimate. Combined with the xslt script of, eg, Fabien, RDFa's
> deployment can ride on the back of GRDDL. And I think that is good and
> important.
>
> Ie, I think keeping @profile is a good idea.

GRDDL processors can obtain transformation information in a number of
ways, but none of the various mechanisms are based purely on a URI in
@profile; they are always dereferenced, and I haven't seen yet what we
are proposing to put at the 'end' of that URI.

One of the reasons that GRDDL proposes using @profile is for those
situations where it is not possible to use @grddl:transformation,
i.e., the generic XML solution. But since we are adding new attributes
to XHTML anyway, we _could_ actually add that attribute to the RDFa
DTD and schemas if we wanted to.

Another way GRDDL could be added would be to add a transformation rule
to the RDFa namespace document, as per:

  <http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#ns-bind>

If we decide we want to add GRDDL support, then this seems to me to be
the better way to do it, since it is outside of the RDFa spec as such.

I'm not for or against this, or any other particular solution, by the
way. :) I'm simply saying that if the argument is that RDFa should be
aligned with GRDDL (which is a little eleventh hour) then it should be
done properly, rather than being used as an argument for overloading
@profile. (Which as far as I can tell doesn't work out of the box with
GRDDL anyway.)

Regards,

Mark

-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.

Received on Monday, 10 December 2007 16:14:46 UTC