[uf-discuss] rel-xxx proposal

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hello,

On 10/26/05, Ryan King <ryan at technorati.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2005, at 2:48 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > On 10/26/05, Edward O'Connor <hober0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>> This proposed Microformat is a way for page to "mark" what's at the
> >>> end of the href -- in this case http://xxx-site.example.com/ --
> >>> is an
> >>> XXX site.
> >>
> >> OK.
> >>
> >>> <a rel="xxx" href="http://xxx-site.example.com/">XXX Site</a>
> >>
> >> Using the rel attribute for this strikes me as wrong.
> >>
> >> Quoting <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#adef-
> >> rel>:
> >>
> >>         This attribute describes the relationship *from the
> >>         current document* to the anchor specified by the href
> >>         attribute. [Emphasis mine.]
> >>
> >> Surely, whether or not the site you're linking to is XXX/NSFW/
> >> whatever
> >> is quite independent of its relationship to *your* site.
> >>
> >> Perhaps class="xxx" would be better in this case.
> >
> > It has become common practice to use URL's and webpages to represent
> > "people", to represent "groups", and to represent "ideas".
> >
> > If that is the case then, for example, if a webpage had rel-xxx on it
> > and that webpage represented a person -- let's say Joe Blow -- then it
> > would be saying:
> >
> >     Joe Blow considers what's at the end of that URL to be XXX
> > (pornographic) material.
>
> Actually, no. The rel attribute declares the relation between Jow
> Blow and "that URL," not "that URL"
>
> So, in essence, rel="xxx" means "the relationship between this and
> that is xxx". Not what you're going for.

So wouldn't that then mean XFN is wrong too?



See ya

--
     Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

     charles @ reptile.ca
     supercanadian @ gmail.com

     developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___________________________________________________________________________
 Never forget where you came from