[microformats-discuss] xFolk 0.4
bud at thecommunityengine.com
Sun Jul 10 19:29:46 PDT 2005
First off, xFolk has now graduated to RC1 and is on the wiki here:
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,
> 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
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
> just a SPAN? That would make it easier to tag rich-media objects in
> their "natural form", improving the microformats readability for
> (when looking at a tagged image I expect to see an image not a link to
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?
More information about the microformats-discuss