[uf-discuss] entry permalink in hatom

[Ryan King]

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  
> [1] 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  
>> list:
>>  Specifications:
>>  - 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.

-rk
--
Ryan King
ryan at technorati.com