[uf-discuss] xFolk thoughts
bud at thecommunityengine.com
Sun Aug 27 14:04:49 PDT 2006
I agree with Tantek's sentiment to keep xFolk simple unless there is
justification to make it more complex. When I wrote xFolk, my
intention was to have a format that would allow tagged links to be
harvested, not so much to display lists of the links that were thus
harvested with proper citation back to the linker and reference to a
harvest date. That's great because people get what it's for without
too much trouble, and as a result they don't have too much trouble
At the time I wrote xFolk (last iteration was last summer) I thought
that by convention, you could assume that such a tagged link came
from the page on which you found it and was authored by whoever
authored the page.
Now, I can see how that might not be satisfying to many, but I also
think the issues of author and authored-on-date is outside the scope
of xFolk. These issues may be in the scope of something like hAtom
which seems to make designations about author and author date for
whole blocks of content on a page. You could also quite possibly use
a citation format of some sort if you wanted to say that a particular
tagged link came from a particular source.
The problem with creating specific solutions for things like author
and authored-date at the xFolk level is that you can come up with a
billion implementations for each specific case. Why would you do that?
On Aug 27, 2006, at 14:59, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> 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
>> 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
> 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
> 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
>> 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
> 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.
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
More information about the microformats-discuss