[microformats-discuss] URIs please!
ryan at technorati.com
Fri Jul 15 14:14:01 PDT 2005
On Jul 14, 2005, at 8:45 PM, Peter Janes wrote:
> Kevin Marks wrote:
>> Right, Peter, but there is a difference between an elemental
>> format , which defines a single value, and a compound format like
> As far as I can tell the main difference is what the context is.
Actually, I think the elemental vs. compound is more about size and
reusability than anything else. I think Kevin came up with that
distinction, so he'd be able to answer more clearly.
> For elemental formats the context is the entire document; for
> compound documents it's the content of all elements that match a
> top-level element in the XMDP hierarchy.
I think you're reading too much into the elemental vs. compound
thing. Elemental microformats are "small and useful for building
other microformats." Compound are "bigger and sometimes composed of
> There's nothing stopping an elemental format--where all occurrences
> of its attribute values on a page are significant--from having an
> XMDP that defines its meaning. (In fact, it's encouraged that all
> microformats have XMDPs, whether they're elemental or not.)
Right. And no one is discouraging use from doing that.
> That means that elemental formats are the counterexample to the
> statement that, on a page referencing an XMDP profile, individual
> attribute values are meaningless unless they're contained by some
> other particular attribute value (which is how I read "we're not
> looking for individual attribute values, we're looking for
> attribute values in context").
No. I think you've misunderstood what I wrote. I was trying to
emphasize context as a way to disambiguate terms. "Context" does not
> I'd propose a new version of Bud Gibson's statement 2, on what
> linking to an XMDP means:
> The presence of a link to an XMDP means that any occurrence of a
> *top-level* attribute value defined in the XMDP is to be
> interpreted according to the XMDP's definition. Within that
> context, any occurrence of an attribute value defined below that
> top-level attribute in the XMDP's hierarchy is also to be
> interpreted according to the XMDP's definition.
I really don't think it has to be this complex.
Why can't we just use the definiton of 'profile' from HTML [http://
www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/global.html#h-126.96.36.199]? That was the
original intent with having profile urls. I don't think there's any
value in diverging from that definition (of course, we are extending
it in that we use profiles to define things outside <meta>).
>> Validating the existence of an elemental format is easy, as it is
>> a single value; validating a more complex structure requires parsing.
> I'm not sure "elemental" means "defines a single value".
It doesn't. I just means "small and reusable."
> On that page only the Rel* microformats define single values;
> VoteLinks, XFN and XOXO define many values yet are also considered
> to be elemental.
Single value, multiple *possible values.* With XFN, you're looking
for single values (scalars, if you will).
XOXO, of course, isn't very "small," but is heavy on "reusable." :)
> The distinction seems to be more one of structure: elemental
> formats define values that are applied to an attribute of a single
> element, while compound formats define values that are applied to
> the attributes in a hierarchy of elements. (robots-exclusion,
> then, would be an elemental format.)
The distinction is not that clear, nor does it need to be.
>> Also, note the composability of the elements; you can make sense
>> of rel="tag" within another format, even if you don't necessarily
>> parse that format fully.
> Unless, for some reason, another XMDP is being used that defines
> rel="tag" to have a different meaning. One would hope that
> microformats.org will be able to avoid any internal overlap,
> but there's sure to be some group with their own format that
> redefines an attribute value to something more specific to their
> purpose. Suppose the IETF defined a "references microformat" for
> RFCs that used rel="tag" to refer to documents created by the W3C's
> Technical Architecture Group;
Hmm. IETF an W3C working together? Sounds like a conspiracy. Of
course IETF publishes all their docs in plain text, not HTML.
> now your tag parser's going to eat a lot of bogus data because it
> presumes it knows what rel="tag" means.
> Which gets back to the request that started this thread: to
> explicitly identify each microformat used in a document by its URI.
Ok. That's enough.
We have consensus.
There is no disagreement.
We need to have URLs to identify microformats.
> Sorry if this has rambled somewhat between topics; while writing
> I've been skipping through the list and various websites looking
> for references and examples to cite. Feel free to divide and
> conquer as necessary. :)
> Peter J.
More information about the microformats-discuss