[uf-discuss] proposal: a.include
Tantek Ç elik
tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Mon Jul 10 20:12:33 PDT 2006
On 7/10/06 5:15 PM, "Ryan King" <ryan at technorati.com> 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
>> 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.
> 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.
More information about the microformats-discuss