Bill de h�ra wrote:
It has yet to been explained to me why they might be necessary - so why do I need to think they're not necessary to justify an objection? ;)
Heh.. that's fair ;-)
I've also made a (I believe significant) point in conflating @profile to @rel that hasn't been addressed (imho). The very useful thing I've seen is that @profile could be used to flag an archive. But how that's essentially different from using @rel I don't know.
I am a firm believer in giving individual meaningful names to things. @rel works for links because it identifies how the link [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the item containing the link. How is @rel meaningful in the case of profiles? I don't believe in reusing names simply because the thing being named is somewhat similar to another thing.
And I still don't understand why @version and @profile have anything to do with each other.
I personally don't think @version is all that useful as it is currently defined. What use is it? What technical problem does @version satisfy?
My general opinion on this type of stuff, is that if you can't determine sound evaluation rules, it has to be because the domain or the nature of the data dictates it - in this case I think vagueness on conflict resolution is an indicator that the feature being proposed is woolly. A resulting suspicion is that @profile metadata will be highly lossy in heavy aggregation and remixing scenarios, which I speculate will explode over the next 18 months. In short I'm concerned @profile is feature that will not self-interoperate.
I don't see how the conflict resolution approach I suggested is vague. Profiles are evaluated independently. If multiple profiles are specified, each is validated independently of the other. Yes, this is different than what I wrote up in the PaceProfileAttribute but I've come to my senses (somewhat) since then.
In any case, I definitely want to avoid getting too hyped up about this. Personally I think profiles would be a good thing, but, it does not appear that I am in the majority party on this one. So be it.
- James M Snell
