[uf-discuss] xFolk thoughts
Tantek Ç elik
tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Sun Aug 27 11:59:59 PDT 2006
On 8/27/06 11:11 AM, "Brian Suda" <brian.suda at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have been playing around with xFolk and now that more sites are
> beginning to implement this along with Pingerati indexing them. I had
> a few thoughts that could be added to the spec.
> 1) There is no date for when the link was tagged or added. This would
> be an optional property. It could also be extracted from "surrounding"
> microformats. It makes sense that if you are using hAtom (which as a
> datetime published and updated) that you could use that for the xFolk
> if the xFolk is contained within the hAtom entry.
Brian, based on what real world link tagging examples do you think there
should be a date in xFolk?
> Maybe there was a reason to leave-off any sort of date, can someone clarify?
Other way around.
We don't need any reason to leave off anything. Things are left out by
There needs to be a good justification to put things in, starting with being
part of the 80/20 implied schema of existing use in real world examples
published on the *Web*.
> 2) Who added this link? Another optional property to nest withing an
> xfolkentry could be an hCard and/or if the page has an <address
> class="vcard"> then that can be used as well. I know it is pretty
> obvious that the owner of the site posted the xfolkentry, but once you
> begin to aggregate xFolks links, we should give some sort of credit
> from whom the xFolk was gleaned.
Again, ditto. See above methodology.
> I know xFolk is purposely pretty lightweight and these two items
> should be optional. What do people think?
Just use hReview to "review" the URL. hReview has dtreviewed and reviewer
to handle both of these.
Keep xFolk simple as intended. Note that you can overlap and include both
xFolk and hReview semantics if you wish on tagged URLs.
More information about the microformats-discuss