[microformats-discuss] rel="cite", rev="cite". rel="comment"?

[Tantek Ç elik]

On 7/12/05 12:12 PM, "Andy Skelton" <skeltoac at gmail.com> wrote:

> It does not classify relationships such as "reply" or "via" as
> proposed by Eran but it does capitalize on the directional quality of
> a citation by adding rel="cite"

Question:

What semantic difference is there between:

1. <cite><a href="http://example.com">example citation</a></cite>

and

2. <a rel="cite" href="http://example.com">example citation</a>

?

AFAICT, there is no semantic difference.

However, (1) only uses pre-defined XHTML elements.

(2) uses a new rel value.

Thus (1) is preferred.


> and rev="cite" to hyperlinks.

I don't think rev="cite" is something that an author can be trusted to
claim.

>From a trust and authority perspective, you don't get to state that someone
else is citing you.  You can only state when you cite someone else.


> For example, consider a Pingback. A blogger generates a favorable
> article citing one of your articles. He writes < a href="foo"
> rel="cite vote-for">foo< /a> and your blog is notified via pingback.
> If your blog reacts by generating a comment with a hyperlink back to
> his article, it should be < a href="bar" rev="cite">bar< /a>.

While I can certainly appreciate the symmetry of using rel vs. rev = cite,
in practice, 'rev' is something that is not easy to understand for web
authors.

Another alternative is to use something like rel="comment", which would be
like saying that this resource over here, is a comment for the current
(portion of the) page.

Tantek