[microformats-discuss] Re: Proposing RelSource
tjameswhite at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 12 17:37:31 PDT 2005
> I think it's actually quite common in the blogosphere. Consider the
> where Ryan might quote a blog post made by tantek. I read Ryan's post
> but would like to respond to Tantek's opinions. The markup would be
> something like so:
> ---- * ----
> <cite class="revreplyto"><a
> Quoting from Tantek's post here...
> Blah blah blah...
> Via: <cite class="relvia"><a
> ---- * ----
OK - I see where you're going with this. But I would ask, what
difference does it make? Essentially you are creating a works cited
list for your post. So why not just code it:
<a href="http://tantek.com/interesting-blog-post" rel="cite">Tantek
Quoting from Tantek's post here...
Blah blah blah...
<a href="http://theryanking.com/blog/blog-post-i-read" rel="cite">Ryan
Think back to writing research papers -- you've read lots of sources,
some referencing each other, but each ultimately it's own piece. At the
end you construct a bibliography/works cited. With your example, you
have read Tantek's comment and (presumably) Ryan's original post, so
you've created a works cited for your post. I really don't see a need
to differentiate between the two sources. I like the idea of keeping
the formats as simple as possible.
(Note: I realize that I eliminated the <cite> element. I suppose a
better structure would be <cite rel="source.uri"> or some such thing. I
don't have the spec handy at the moment.)
<a href="http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=12227&t=1">Get Firefox!</a>
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
More information about the microformats-discuss