W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > May 2007

Re: GRDDL profile for RDF-A

From: Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 19:07:16 -0400
Message-ID: <4654C924.8040304@torrez.us>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: Josť Manuel Cantera Fonseca <jmcf@tid.es>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org

Dan Connolly wrote:
> Elias Torres wrote:
>> In short, I don't think profile urls work because not everyone uses them
>> (point in case microformats). Therefore, to depend on it to find RDFa
>> would be misguided. There are other practical issues, such as limited
>> access authors/publishers that don't have control over the head section
>> of the page. This violates one of our principles of copy and paste/drag
>> and drop. It would require copying the profile and enabling on the page
>> you pasted it, hence making it more cumbersome that copy and paste alone.
> That explains why not rely on a profile,
> but it doesn't argue against providing one at all.

Good thing you clarified that. So yes, I tried to summarize the reasons
why we don't *require* it as best as I recall from my own discussions on
this list with Ben/Mark/Steven. I did not shut the door on optional
(it's not like I can shut any doors anyways).

Maybe the question has always been for optional and not required and I
just missed it. But if optional is what people want, I'm willing to
support the discussion. In fact, count me in!

>> We have discussed this issue in the past so we should have it handy by
>> now why we don't have a standard profile (maybe in the FAQ??).
> I was advised to watch issue 28 when I asked a related question.
>   http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/28
> It's evidently still open.

Good thing.

Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2007 23:07:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:50 UTC