"uid" microformats? (was Re: [uf-discuss] ISBN mark-up)
scott at randomchaos.com
Wed Apr 26 10:05:18 PDT 2006
On Apr 26, 2006, at 11:44 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> A large portion of what is published on the web references things
>> that don't exist on the web, and thus don't have a canonical URL.
> Right, and to resolve whether it is a "large portion" or not, we
> ask that
> such things are documented in examples pages, and the citation-
> examples are
> a good example (so to speak) of this.
Ok, here are a hundred thousand references to "a cup of coffee":
None of these cups have canonical URLs that allow me to uniquely
reference the cup of coffee on the web.
>> a canonical URL on the web suitable for a UID is a bad constraint for
>> a microformat.
> This I am not sure about. It certainly seems like a *good thing*
> to provide
> incentive for more UIDs to become canonical URLs on the web.
> But I would agree that this shouldn't be a constraint/requirement
> per se,
> but rather should be a bias (i.e. SHOULD) so that we provide
> incentive or at
> least preference in the direction of more canonical URLs.
And everyone else seems to be arguing that this shouldn't be a MUST.
MUST is a constraint. SHOULD is a *good thing*. Where is the
disagreement here? Let's not waste our time explaining why we
disagree before making sure we really do.
>> Right. I think saying "80% of people do X" without pointing to the
>> real world publishing examples that back up such a statement makes it
>> look like voices on this mailing list are determining the 80 vs. 20.
> Right. Hopefully we only do so in "obvious" cases (e.g. things on
> the Web
> have URLs :)
That's what I thought, but I apparently illustrated my own point with
my "large portion" comment.
More information about the microformats-discuss