On 7/10/06 5:15 PM, "Ryan King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 9, 2006, at 7:42 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote: >> Ryan wrote: >> >>> (sidenote: I don't think the @type should be required after this >>> change) >> >> I'm not sure about that. OT1H the addition of the "type" attribute >> tries to >> communicate that the "include" is "just" HTML. OTOH the "text/ >> html" type is >> for a whole document, not just a fragment so it might not be >> correct to use >> "text/html" for the include-pattern. >> >> ... >> >> Thoughts? > > My thought: specifying the mime-type on a local IDREF violates the > DRY principle. A local IDREF refers to the existing document so any > mime-type applied to that reference will be: > > 1. non-standard, > 2. wrong, or > 3. duplicative > > In other words if the mimetype is wrong, the @type attribute is > worthless, if it's correct, it doesn't tell us anything we don't > already know. The best we can hope for is a non standard mimetype > which hasn't been used anywhere before.
Flawless reasoning AFAICT. Well done. > I still vote for not requiring it. Given the reasoning above, I actually think a strong position is merited, which is rather than not requiring it (making it a MAY), to instead suggest that authors SHOULD NOT specify 'type' on the include-pattern, precisely because of the reasons you provide. I'll edit the proposal accordingly. Thanks, Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
