[uf-discuss] XMDP inclusions

[Tantek Ç elik]

Hi Rowan,

The profile of a profile document itself would define the rel and class
values used in the profile document itself, that is:

class="profile"

and perhaps 

rel="include" (or import)

and that's it - no other class/rel values are used in XMDP documents in
general.

Any other use of the profile attribute is introducing a new and different
(beyond what XMDP defines) semantic for the profile attribute, and we would
want to avoid that if at all possible.

Thanks,

Tantek


On 5/20/06 3:56 AM, "BigSmoke" <bigsmoke at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there any progress on (recursively) including XMDP profiles?

>From the Wiki
> I gather:

INCLUDES / AGGREGATE PROFILES [1]
Methods for including one or more
> values, properties, or an entire
XMDP into an other XMDP as a way of creating
> an aggregate profile that
effectively contains definitions from multiple
> profiles would be quite
useful. They would enable documents with microformats
> to simply refer
to a single profile URL rather than a complete space separated
> set of
all the profile URLs of the microformats that may be in use.

PROFILES
> [2]
    * update XMDP with new required features:
          o ability for one
> profile to include/import another (rel="import" ?)
          o ability to
> reference an XMDP via rel="profile" (similar to
XHTML2 rel value by same
> name)
          o ability/suggestion to reference an XMDP using <a href>
> in
addition to <link>

But, I'm wondering: do we even need anything new? Can
> the GRDDL
profile, for example, not already be specified in the
> profile
attribute of a document's XMDP profile?

This requires an example: our
> document conforms to RDF Site Summaries
[3] and has its profile set to
> [3].

[3] is an XMDP profile document that has [4] as its profile and with
> a
profileTransformation rel set up. If [3]'s profileTransformation
applies to
> our document, doesn't [3]'s data-view profile [4] also
apply to our
> document?

My question, then, is: is this an exception, or could this simply
> be
extended to a rule? This rule could say: The profile of our
> document's
profile also applies to our document. As a side effect, this
> rule
_might_ obliterate the need for the profileTransformation rel value.

I'm
> wondering if there's anything that would actually be broken by
adding such a
> rule to XMDP... There probably is, but I need this idea
to be shot down
> _properly_ before I can get it out of my head ;-)

[1]
> http://microformats.org/wiki/xmdp-brainstorming#includes_.2F_aggregate_profile
> s
[2] http://microformats.org/wiki/to-do#profiles
[3]
> http://www.w3.org/2000/08/w3c-synd/
[4]
> http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view

Thanks for reading this,

Rowan

--
> 
Morality is usually taught by the
> immoral.
_______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>