James M Snell wrote: > Bill de hÓra wrote: > >> Microformats for the most part have a defined structure; this proposal >> isn't providing structure. >> >> >> > For the most part yes. > >>> Regarding the use of a link versus foo:profile, I really have no >>> preference one way or the other. The profile reference should be a >>> dereferencable link to a profile document that describes the profile >>> but, for the most part, clients will likely only rarely ever dereference >>> it (using the href more as an identifier). Strictly speaking, >>> dereferenceable profile links should probably use the atom:link element >>> but there is no hard requirement that says a profile element wouldn't >>> also work. >>> >> >> >> Using atom:link strikes me as tag abuse [1]. But that's what >> microformats tend to do (use presentational markup for data). >> >> >> > Agreed. So what's a better solution? Like I said, I really have no > preference one way or the other.
(taking off my markup hat) If someone said to me you can check an entry's profile via an atom:link/@rel='profile' I would say 'ok, that's fine' (soon followed by 'what should I do if all the other metadata isn't there?'). If it's truly abuse the registrar can trap it and tell you to use something else. The reason to pick a dedicated element instead is if the WG wants to set a precedent on how the format is to be extended (we have multiple points of extension and no guidance as to how to choose between them). Otherwise I think atom:link will be ok. cheers Bill
