[uf-discuss] entry permalink in hatom
scott at randomchaos.com
Wed Jan 4 13:23:52 PST 2006
Tantek Çelik wrote:
> Copying it though violates the DRY principle and unnecessarily
> introduces a
> risk of introducing errors/changes from the spec.
Are we really applying the DRY principle to documentation? Nobody
uses rel-bookmark because nobody knows about it because nobody reads
W3C specs in their entirety. I think the benefits of explaining the
elements of meaningful XHTML  clearly outweigh the risks of
straying from the spec. If we don't understand a section of the spec
well enough to explain it to others, how can we expect to build
microformats on top of XHTML?
> We should not duplicate things from other specs, we should
> reference them.
False dichotomy. We can both reference them and further explain them
within the contexts of microformats.
> Thus perhaps we need a required reading section where we at least
> - HTML 4.01: http://w3.org/tr/html401
> - XHTML 1.0: http://w3.org/tr/xhtml1
Those two specs are hundreds of pages long. That's a hefty
prerequisite to impose on someone who just wants to make their weblog
markup a bit more semantic.
> Alternatively, one might say that the use of rel="bookmark" for blog
> permalinks is worthy of documenting as an explicit example, since
> the HTML
> 4.01 spec makes no reference to blogs or permalinks.
I would lean this way, but I don't think this conversation is worth
having until a rel-bookmark wiki page actually exists. Right now
we're discussing whether or not a hypothetical explanation of rel-
bookmark is better than the W3C explanation.
More information about the microformats-discuss