[uf-discuss] entry permalink in hatom
ryan at technorati.com
Wed Jan 4 13:31:01 PST 2006
On Jan 4, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Scott Reynen wrote:
> 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
People use rel="bookmark" - see the WordPress default theme, see
http://microformats.org/wiki/blog-post-examples. It gets used.
> because nobody knows about it because nobody reads W3C specs in
> their entirety.
But they can read the part we link to.
> 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.
There can only be one normative reference for this usage. I'm not we
shouldn't explain rel='bookmark' in µf specs, I'm just saying that we
shouldn't create a new format for this.
>> 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.
Then they can just read the bit we point to in the µf specs they read.
>> 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.
My initial comment was just about whether we should create a new
microformat, not whether or not we should document its usage. We
should definitely document how rel-bookmark is used, but we have no
need to create a new specification. None at all.
ryan at technorati.com
More information about the microformats-discuss