Dan Connolly wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 21:11 -0500, Manu Sporny wrote:
On 02/24/2010 11:35 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
"There has been talk here (DC-land) of
moving towards more strongly recommending RDFa as a strategy for
HTML-inline metadata. Currently XHTML is the only option there. If
profile is taken away, that might force the migration to happen more
hastily."
-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0576.html
If there's no community depending on head/@profile in HTML 5, maybe
I'll just let this go.
Hi Dan,
Just wanted to clarify a couple of things in this discussion because I
don't want us to lose sight of the significant event that just occurred.
I think the situation is that there could be two, if not three metadata
communities that would love to see this @profile-everywhere proposal
succeed in HTML WG.
The @profile proposal that Julian, Tantek and I are proposing would
achieve several long-standing goals:
- Preserve @profile on <HEAD> in HTML5 (for GRDDL and Dublin Core
legacy documents).
- Clarify the HTML4.01 definition of @profile with a number of errata
that is already authored. (to ensure there is no mistake on how to
use @profile in HTML5).
- Enable the use of @profile on all elements (which does have support
in both the Microformats community /and/ the RDFa community).
Tantek outlined how this @profile proposal would lead to a more
follow-your-nose-ish version of Microformats, which is a very good
thing. The RDFa community has also discussed how this new mechanism
could replace (in a very good way) a number of mechanisms that are
currently being proposed for RDFa 1.1.
All this with very minimal effort, AFAICT. I've committed to editing the
HTML WG FPWD of the HTML5 Metadata Profiles spec. Are there concerns of
yours that extend past what I've said above?
Technically, I need to think thru this on-all-elements stuff, but
my main concern is: closing an issue means "we're done; we don't
plan to work on it more unless/until somebody brings up information
that we haven't considered." But you clearly plan to work on it more,
based on information that you _have_ considered. I can't make
sense of that.
My main concern is seeing that this moves to resolution. Nothing more.
Nothing less.
One way to resolve this is to decide that email that you wrote 2.5 years
ago did not gain consensus, note that no changes have been made to it
which will attract a wider consensus, and furthermore note there is wide
sentiment(*) that no change to the spec are required. Closed. Fini.
Done. Motion carries over objections. Never to be discussed again.
The other way to resolve this is for somebody to actually take an action
which is associated with a credible schedule which has a plausible
opportunity to gain consensus.
Which way would you prefer?
- Sam Ruby
(*) Yes, I'm aware of Julian's email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0870.html
And believe that we need a change proposal.
