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
