"uid" microformats? (was Re: [uf-discuss] ISBN mark-up)

Tantek Ç elik tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Tue Apr 25 16:19:44 PDT 2006

On 4/25/06 4:00 PM, "Xiaoming Liu" <liu_x at lanl.gov> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>>> With URI you got all these things free, and you don't have to argue about
>>> persistentence or uniqueness (which are hollow without concrete
>>> schema/mechanism), it's much simpler to directly reference URI RFC.
>> True.  My point is that URL is preferable over URN as well, and thus we
>> prefer to say that UIDs SHOULD be URLs, though certainly per your point we
>> could say if you cannot use a URL for your UID then you SHOULD at least use
>> a URI/URN.
>> Or are you proposing that we say that UIDs MUST be URIs in the context of
>> microformats?
> I would propose to leave UID intact in hcalendar and hcard, because
> whatever written in rfc2426/rfc2445 and their examples cannot be
> easily changed, and they seem to work well with hcalendar/hcard.
> And I suggest a new "URI" microformat for the purpose of "indicating
> something *is* an identifier" in general, in this case you can easily
> reference URI RFC and no further elaboration about
> persistence/resovlable/uniqueness, because these issues are addressed by
> various URI specification.

This seems like a reasonable proposal to at least document on the
uid-brainstorming page.  Please go ahead and add it.




More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list