[microformats-discuss] URIs please!

Thu Jul 14 14:38:33 PDT 2005

On Jul 14, 2005, at 2:25 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:

> On 7/14/05, Ryan King <ryan at technorati.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I don't think
>> anyone's arguing against profile urls.
>
> I'm trying to suggest that all microformat documents SHOULD (in the
> RFC2119 sense) contain a URI/URIs by which their profile(s) can be
> identified.

Agreed. In fact, that's what I put in the xmdp-faq.

  http://microformats.org/wiki/xmdp-faq

>
>>> I understand there's ongoing discussion about declaring that a
>>> microformat is in use in doc fragments (where the <head> is
>>> unavailable). I don't know whether the use of an <a> hyperlink is the
>>> best mechanism or not (a possible alternative might be to use a URI
>>> for the outermost microformat term, e.g.  <div
>>> class="http://example.org/some/microformat/schema/xfolkentry">).
>>
>> How is this different from
>>
>> <div class="xfolkentry">
>>
>> ?
>
> It's a URI. See:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-benefits
>
>>> But however it's done, identification of the microformat used within
>>> the doc by means of a URI (the GUID of the Web) is essential IMHO to
>>> make the difference between making quality, globally unambiguous data
>>> available and something barely less fragile than screenscraping as it
>>> stands.
>>
>> I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you.
>
> That's very good news, but doesn't appear to be reflected in the 
> current docs.

See above.

Thanks Danny,

Tantek