W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2007

Re: microformats, profiles, and taking back rel/class names [standardizedFieldValues-51]

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:03:20 +0900
Message-Id: <05233976-EF9A-44E7-A3FC-BA7A1C1EB9E0@w3.org>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>

Le 17 juil. 2007 à 05:18, Harry Halpin a écrit :
> I see  absolutely no reason to *break* something which isn't currently
> broken, at least when there is a "way" to do it correctly. The correct
> way is to use @profiles as given by HTML 4, since a profile can  
> assign a
> way of "preferred meanings" for values of the class attribute.
> Therefore, the preservation of @profile in HTML 5 is of importance,  
> even
> if it's empirical use on the Web is currently low.

If  [profile attribute][1] was dropped, could it be replaced by  
something else?
If can't be replaced by something else, why it is really fundamental  
to keep it?


* with profile attribute

<head profile="http://dublincore.org/documents/dcq-html/ http:// 

* without profile attribute

<LINK rel="profile dcq-html"
<LINK rel="profile xfn"

I wonder if authoring tools (CMS, forms, standalone applications)  
make it easier to edit the link more than head. I should try to  
review that.

[1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 07:03:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:16 UTC