[microformats-discuss] Re: Proposing RelSource

[Eran]

Tim Said:
> So, I now agree with your ideas (class="relVia", 
> class="relUpdate", class="relReplyTo"). However, I don't 
> quite follow why you want to keep the rel prefix for now 
> though? If class="Via" will work now, and in the future 
> simply become rel="Via", why not go that route? (I'm slow, 
> dense and new to this, so bear with me.)
> 

My reasoning on this is somewhat roundabout and possibly wrong but here
goes. I'm using revReplyTo and relReplyTo (and others) because both have
meaning (I'm replying to the linked post vs the linked post is a reply
to this one) and I want to distinguish between them clearly. In the case
of via the direction is obvious (I don't see anyone saying "the linked
post was 'inpspired' by this one") so via can be assumed to always be
relVia and thus can be written simply as via. You may be right and for
consistency maybe we should change it to relVia.

I should probably create an open issues section on the brainstorming
page so we can get some more specific feedback.

> And that brings me back to my print-center question.  Your 
> scope focuses on distributed online discussions (i.e.: 
> blog-to-blog), but what would be the format if I were to 
> reference a print piece? For example, if I were to post an 
> entry after reading an article:
> 
> ---* My blog entry *---
> 
> In his essay "Hemmingway and Fish" (<cite>Times Literary 
> Supplement, June 1998</cite>), Mr. Haute contents....
> 
> ---* *---
> 
> I'm referencing a piece I've read, so <cite> would be the 
> appropriate element. Would anything else be needed? A link to 
> the TLS website perhaps[1]? Would something like "relPrint" 
> be appropriate?
> 

I think that it's good practice to cite the most exact resource you can
come up with. In the case of printed resources, there's several accepted
examples, all of which simply use the cite element to reference the name
of the source. Based on these examples I don't see a need for relPrint
but I'm definitely open to other opinions on the subject.

> 
> [1] I could see coding it as (XHTL 2) <cite 
> cite="http://www.the-tls.co.uk/">Times Literary Supplement, 
> June 1998</cite>, but doesn't seem quite appropriate as it 
> doesn't like to the article. 

The rendering of a cite attribute in XHTML2 is still very an open issue
as far as I understand. I'm assuming that the example you use above
_will_ be rendered with a link to the url but that remains to be seen.