- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:05:04 +0100
Matthew Raymond wrote: >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> > > Basically, yes. -- "It seems to be a constant throughout history: In every period, people believed things that were just ridiculous, and believed them so strongly that you would have gotten in terrible trouble for saying otherwise." -- http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
Received on Friday, 16 September 2005 03:05:04 UTC