[uf-discuss] rel-bookmark [was entry permalink in hatom

[Kevin Marks]

On Jan 4, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:

> On 1/4/06 1:52 PM, "David Janes -- BlogMatrix" 
> <davidjanes at blogmatrix.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Tantek Çelik wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>> specification.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we could call it:
>>>
>>>  http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-bookmark-tutorial
>>>
>>> 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).

As long as the page is not structured like a spec, this should be clear 
- we  perhaps need a Template:DesignPattern to use liek the spec 
templates.

A precedent is perhaps

http://microformats.org/wiki/abbr-design-pattern and 
http://microformats.org/wiki/datetime-design-pattern

for documenting something that is standard HTML, but used in a 'clever' 
way.

(also, as http://www.microformats.org/wiki/rel-bookmark is #3 on Google 
for a search for 'rel bookmark', putting something there is better than 
nothing).


>> Conceptually, is there a microformat "rel-bookmark" or not 
>> (irregardless
>> of who is providing the spec)?
>
> No there is no "rel-bookmark" microformat.
>
> rel="bookmark" is a normative part of the HTML 4.01 specification.
>
> Using rel="bookmark" is "just" using semantic (X)HTML. Nothing new 
> about it.
>
>> where people are going to look. This of course code just say "this is
>> defined by HTML 4.01" and "here's how we use it 
>> [[rel-bookmark-tutorial]]"
>
> Are you suggesting we put in a stub page on the wiki for everything we
> re-use from HTML 4.01?

Not for clear well-known element, but when we come up with a good reuse 
like this of a more obscure part of a spec, this is a good way to 
encourage people to read the core specs themselves, and not just 
blithely make up new elements.