- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:47:22 +0000
- To: martin@weborganics.co.uk
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 12:21 +0000, Martin McEvoy wrote: > @profile in this way is behaving just the same as html4 profiles.. > > "As a globally unique name. User agents may be able to recognize the > name (without actually retrieving the profile) and perform some > activity based on known conventions for that profile" > > http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#profiles > > In the case of RDFa the "known conventions" would be setting the > default namespace for the document. Not quite the same. "name" in the quote above can be translated as "URI". So when it says: "user agents may be able to recognize the name" it means that user agents should only be doing this for URIs that they recognise. Unless I'm misunderstanding your suggestion, RDFa processors would be applying the profile as a default prefix whether or not they recognised the URI. I don't have anything against this general technique - but I don't think it's consistent with the HTML4/XHTML1.x definition of @profile, so a different attribute would need to be used. A lot of the debate here has been on the syntax and model for profile documents. Personally I don't think we've had enough debate on whether profile documents are needed at all - Martin's suggestion here is not to define a profile (in the sense that we've been talking about them) at all, but to just set the default CURIE prefix. What exactly are the use cases that show this to be insufficient? Personally, I don't think I've seen any yet. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Friday, 19 March 2010 13:48:04 UTC