[microformats-discuss] Proposing RelSource
skeltoac at gmail.com
Tue Jul 12 08:33:12 PDT 2005
On 7/12/05, Tantek Çelik <tantek at cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > In light of this, I see no reason to pursue a microformat for source
> > links/citations/hat tips. If authors adopt rel="cite" they are
> > preemptively applying a well-defined, semantic model that is both
> > user-friendly and easily parsed by machines.
> I see the conclusion as quite the opposite. Because rel="cite" *is* defined
> in XHTML2 drafts, and microformats allow you add rel values to HTML4/XHTML1
> *now*, adopting the same convention makes a lot of sense.
> If anything it bolsters the case for rel="cite" (as opposed to some other
> value like rel="source").
Oops, that was the exact point I was trying to make. I *do* plan to
adopt and promote rel="cite" but I don't see a need to go through the
hooplah of defining it as a microformat. Or am I missing something?
As for whether people /should/ indicate primary sources differently
than non-primary sources, i.e. hat tips, consider the definition of
the word /cite/:
"to quote or refer to as a precedent or authority"
(Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, (c) 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.)
With that in mind, it would not be incorrect to cite both the primary
source (authority) and a hat tip or "via" (precedent) with the same
Robots can construct "citation chains" to discover a likely primary
source if a standard markup is used. The position of any resource
relative to Primary on a chain could be of great value to search
engines. It was this idea that excited me to propose RelSource in the
first place. I'm just as happy with RelCite.
More information about the microformats-discuss