[uf-discuss] entry permalink in hatom
Tantek Ç elik
tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Wed Jan 4 13:33:20 PST 2006
On 1/4/06 1:23 PM, "Scott Reynen" <scott at randomchaos.com> 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?
To specification, in particular.
> uses rel-bookmark because nobody knows about it because nobody reads
> W3C specs in their entirety.
Or certainly the 80% don't :)
> 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?
>  http://tantek.com/presentations/2005/03/elementsofxhtml/
If you're talking about tutorials, then yes, you are absolutely correct,
the more the merrier, with each hopefully improving on those that came
>> 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.
I should have been more clear.
We need a required reading section for anyone wishing to work on a new
For users of course we want easier tools and documentation. Hence the
creators and examples.
>> 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.
An explanation is different from a specification.
I would welcome a tutorial on rel-bookmark on microformats.org -- let's just
be very clear that it is NOT a new microformat, nor would it be a
Perhaps we could call it:
Other suggestions for indicating that something is a explicitly an
informative tutorial rather than a specification (I'm not saying we have to
always append "-tutorial", but naming conventions tend to be useful,
especially when one could easily confuse a /wiki/rel-bookmark page as being
a specification since the URL looks like other /wiki/rel-* pages).
Thanks for the clarification Scott,
More information about the microformats-discuss