Re: head/@profile needed in HTML 5? GRDDL in Linked Data community?

I worry that discarding profile URIs may cause problems further down the
line. The cost of keeping it in the spec is virtually zero - ignore usually.

We know that things like URI-based extensibitlies work, dereference for more
info, having a profile URI leaves the window open for e.g. a proprietary
client to behave in the way expected.

While GRDDL exists, it isn't an argument here - the best use case is with
more XML data oriented sources, and there is no conflict.

For all the wrong reasons, I reckon a doc level profile thing should stay.
If a browser developer (MS, let's say) wishes to make the browsing
experience richer, why not? The appropriate way there is to push an inline
message for further information. If we don't allow it in the head of a
document, where is it to go - x-bollocks headers?

The use of special short strings is very wrong, it closes the door to future
development on global scale.

My two cents.


On 25 February 2010 15:55, Daniel O'Connor <> wrote:

> As someone who's implemented a pretty poor grddl library, I'd have to say
> for real world use, profile isn't needed - it's assumed a lot of the time.
> Practically no authors respect it regarding microformats and friends. I
> found much utility coming from explcitly saying "search this document for
> vocabulary X".
> Most of my implementations were around microformat parsing.
> Right now it sits in the "I wish people used it properly' category for me.


Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 10:26:31 UTC