[microformats-discuss] xFolk 0.4

[Bud Gibson]

Hi Eran:

First off, xFolk has now graduated to RC1 and is on the wiki here:

http://microformats.org/wiki/xfolk

Your points still holds for the latest version, and I'm open to  
discussion on them.  Let me provide a few reactions inline.  I'll put  
these on the issues list also.

On Jul 10, 2005, at 21:13, Eran wrote:

>> From a semantic standpoint I find that "taggedLink" is misleading,  
>> the
>>
> tags are not comments on the link, they are comments on the _linked
> page_ (as represented by its URL). The subject, if you will, is the
> resource _pointed at_ by the link. To represent this concept   
> better we
> should use a class name like "taggedResource" or even just "tagged".
> This might look like nitpicking but we are, after all, discussing
> semantics here.

Back in xFolk 0.3, the class was actually called xTagged which hits  
at exactly what you are talking about.  What might be the issue with  
using just the word "tagged" or "xTagged"?  At the time, there was  
some discussion in email about just what was being tagged.  At the  
end of the day, in a distributed web tagging system like xFolk or  
reltag, you need  an address to point to because the data cannot be  
assumed to be on your site.  The way to do this for items on the web  
is to point at a URL.

I suppose one could say taggedurl, but isn't that the same as  
taggedlink?

Taggedresource seems less precise in light of this discussion as does  
tagged.  And I do think we need to be precise here because in xFolk,  
we are talking about things with a web presence.

In emerging standards like the geo microformat or even hReview, there  
is a notion that you may be talking about things that are not on the  
web.  The interesting point there, is that the web seems to be  
frequently assumed as a way of resolving their location.

>
> As a follow-up, I'd like to bring up a question: would it be  
> possible to
> use class="tagged" on different types of elements? Say, an IMG, or  
> even
> just a SPAN? That would make it easier to tag rich-media objects in
> their "natural form", improving the microformats readability for  
> people
> (when looking at a tagged image I expect to see an image not a link to
> one).

I see no immediate reason not to take the <img> element into  
account.  This is a very good point.  As for <span>, I see it  
potentially having an identification issue as I discussed above.  As  
a side note, in a discussion of semantics, <span> seems to be the  
least semantic of elements.

I'd like to hear some other opinions on both of these if people have  
any views.  Eran, what's your reaction to the whole link discussion?

Bud