[whatwg] microformats incompatible with WebApps 1.0 ?
Ian Hickson
ian at hixie.ch
Mon Dec 11 16:56:17 PST 2006
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Karl Dubost wrote:
> > >
> > > <link rel="hcard" href="http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns"/>
> > > <link rel="hcard" href="http://www.w3.org/2006/03/hcard"/>
> >
> > I don't really understand how that would solve the problem; could you
> > elaborate?
>
> ok. For microformats it is mandatory to have a profile URI in the head
Mandatory but rarely done, so only mandatory de-jure. De-facto it's
optional and doesn't do anything.
> it helps specifically parsers.
Parsers rarely actually pay any attention to profile="", both because most
content omits it, and also because it's harder to do so. So while
profile="" was originally intended to be used by parsers to reduce
ambiguity, in practice it isn't used by them and doesn't help them.
> It has also the benefits that an authoring tool can download
> automatically XMDP profile for creating an help to edit microformats.
Auto-generated UI is rarely optimal, though.
> So a page containing microformats looks like that.
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
> <head profile="http://gmpg.org/xfn/11">
> <title>Tantek's Thoughts</title>
> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
In HTML5, the above can now be written as:
<!DOCTYPE HTML>
<html>
<head>
<title>Tantek's Thoughts</title>
...which is far easier to write and understand.
> Then in the page there are things like
>
> <ul class="xoxo facets">
> <li><a href="http://technorati.com/profile/tantek"
> rel="me">Technorati</a></li>
> </ul>
>
> rel="me" has a meaning because of the profile up there.
With the new proposal, the above still works, but doesn't require the
profile attribute.
> With the new proposal
>
> * People can add this information even if they do not have access to the
> template (head section). Most common use case form editing.
> * People have it right under their eyes near the information they want to
> describe (if they wish it).
> * Parsers can still have the information to disambiguate when necessary.
With the spec as written now, however, people still don't need access to
the <head>.
The disambiguation thing is nice in theory (which is why I wrote a
detailed normative description for how to handle it about a year or two
ago, in far more detail than HTML4 ever did), but in practice nobody uses
it and it therefore it doesn't actually disambiguate anything.
> > Unfortunately in both cases we don't really have any choice; for back
> > compat, <link> and <meta> elements that aren't in the <head> must be
> > moved to the <head> by the parser.
>
> Then for back compatibility you will have to keep the profile attribute.
I don't really see why. Nobody uses it. What useful content would you be
being compatible with?
> See
> 4. Using GRDDL with valid XHTML
> http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#grddl-xhtml
>
> Parsers are not only browsers parsers.
Removing profile="" makes GRDDL implementations easier and makes them more
compatible with existing content. How is that not a boon?
> Do you have an explanation for the why of
> "<link> and <meta> elements that
> aren't in the <head> must be moved
> to the <head> by the parser."
It's what browsers do... what do you mean?
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg
mailing list