- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:11:49 -0400
James Graham wrote: > Most documents on the web are a direct result of view-source style > learning. If they're invalid rubbish, it's (at least partly) because > spec writers have erronously assumed that the majority of authors would > have enough of a clue to check things like whether there were conflicts > between diffrent profiles they were using. In fact, the fact that > authors won't check for conflicts is one reason that namespaces *should* > be used for profiles - and we should encourage authors to use them as > much as possible so that every value assosiated with a profile is > assosiated explicitly. Authors simply won't read the part of the spec > that explains why including multiple profiles is a bad idea, will > include multiple profiles (since they'll see that that's allowed from > view-sourcing other documents) and will run into name conflicts. So, > infact, I'd require that all profiles introduced through a profile > element (or similar) have an explicity title that was then required for > accessing that profile throughout the document. The profile attribute on > <head> would be discouraged. Then authors looking at a document via > view-source would see a consisent and logical picture which they could > easilly copy. So what you're suggesting is something like this?... | <link rel="profile" href="http://gmpg.org/xfn/11" title="xfn"> | [...] | <a rel="xfn:colleague" href="http://lachy.id.au/"> | Lachlan Hunt: Web Development Guru | </a>
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2005 10:11:49 UTC