On 2006/03/21, at 3:34 PM, Ryan King wrote:
On Mar 21, 2006, at 1:25 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
The profile attribute is probably the least desirable yet still
viable option -- *if* people use it. Is there any data / anecdotal
evidence of how often it's used? Just browsing through the
individual uF specs, it doesn't seem to be emphasised too much.
No, its not emphasized, for several reasons:
1. We don't have profile URIs for most microformats yet. This is
mainly because profile URIs have been a low priority thing, since
microformats pretty much work without them.
Were there others?
This is a shame; the effort to come up and promote them is very low.
The benefits -- being able to tell whether a document has an embedded
microformat without deep parsing -- seem clear.
I'm not sure how useful an HTTP-based method would be. Invariably,
many would not implement it (many don't have that freedom in their
existing tools), so any consumer wishing to consume microformats
would be unable to reliably depend on the absence of such a header
to mean that no microformats are involved.
I wouldn't expect many to use it; just having a well-defined option
will help my use cases. Inferring absence of a microformat from the
absence of a header would be bad, and should be discouraged (as with
many other types of metadata, e.g., Link headers).
Plus, pushing this down to http seems to be a violation of
'separation of concerns'. HTML works, no matter what protocol is
used to move it around, microformats shouldn't break that.
No. HTTP isn't disallowed from talking about the HTML (or any other
format) entity in headers; that's what Content-Type and a multitude
of other headers do.
--
Mark Nottingham
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
microformats-rest mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-rest
