differentiating microformats (was Re: RE: Re: RE: [uf-discuss]
[citation] url field )
michael.mccracken at gmail.com
Thu Dec 7 16:26:41 PST 2006
Mike, can you explain what you mean in the context of the citation format?
I haven't been following many of the other threads on this list this
week, so I don't know what you're referring to.
On 12/7/06, Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ironically, this sounds like another real-world (i.e. not hypothetical)
> example of the need to provide a way to differentiate microformats.
> -Mike Schinkel
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: microformats-discuss-bounces at microformats.org
> > [mailto:microformats-discuss-bounces at microformats.org] On
> > Behalf Of Michael McCracken
> > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 6:05 PM
> > To: Microformats Discuss
> > Subject: Re: Re: RE: [uf-discuss] [citation] url field
> > This seems to have been buried - so again, to anyone
> > interested in hCite:
> > I want to define a new field "URL" to denote an http URL that
> > points to the location of a copy of the cited work.
> > URIs that encode an identifier of the work can be combined
> > with this field, but do not need to be.
> > I understand that the name "URL" may overlap a bit with URI,
> > and something like "downloadlink", etc. might be more direct,
> > but I argue that "URL" is the better choice because it is the
> > most common name already in use in our examples from the web.
> > Can we discuss this revised version of the proposal (or just
> > vote on it?)
> > Thanks,
> > -mike
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
UCSD CSE PhD Candidate
More information about the microformats-discuss