[uf-discuss] Citation format straw proposal on the wiki
tjameswhite at yahoo.com
Thu Mar 30 07:15:09 PST 2006
--- Scott Reynen <scott at randomchaos.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2006, at 7:48 AM, Tim White wrote:
> The "Photo" there isn't machine-readable. I think it should be made
> it machine-readable with <span class="media">photo</span> or <span
> class="citation photo"> -- I'm ambivalent about which is best between
> the two.
I agree your first example, I almost marked up the example the same
--- Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/30/06, Tim White <tjameswhite at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 1) Humans first, machines second.
> At what point does this become mere dogma? It sounds like what
> advocating in fact suggests "human first, who cares about machines";
> as if the one can't support the other in any case.
Not at all. Obviously machines need something to parse, that's why I'd
vote for the <span class="media">photo|book|etc</span>. As for dogma,
I'm just trying to stick to the microformat principles.
> I once held a position that typing introduced more problems than it
> solved, but I've changed my mind. If we were to vote on this, I'd
> give a big +1 to including typing information.
I certainly think that type should be allowed by the format, but not
> Why not use CSS to style types in particular ways, or otherwise
> provide more sublte cues?
That's exactly what I'd do. And I'll grant you that adding a type into
the title makes this much easier to do. That's actually the main reason
I once advocated including type.
> > 2) "Adapted to current behaviors and usage patterns."
> > Microformats are suppose to be modeled on what people are currently
> > doing (80/20) on the web. I think of it in terms of the
> "Everyman/woman" has no idea what microformats are.
> > I think things like marc records, OpenURL, Bibtex, etc. are
> > *too* specific for MF.
> I see it quite the other way around of course. If you just want
> something some generic weblog author can use to markup a book, and
> reject the idea of doing something more, then I have no interest in
> this discussion I'm afraid; you'd be designing for a narrow
> The examples that Alf and Mike posted are perfectably reasonable
> compromises between simplicity and expressiveness.
I think we actually agree more than disagree here. Alf's example was
very good. I think we need a simple core MF that generic weblog authors
can use. But also that the core MF could be modified by, say, library
science people to include more complete information.
In short, I'd like to be able to talk about a book on my blog:
"I am reading <cite class="hcitation title">Operating Manual for
Spaceship Earth</cite> ... "
AND, be able to cite it at the end of a longer piece:
<span class="vcard"><span class="author fn">R. Buckminster
Fuller</span></span>. <span class="title">Operating Manual for
Spaceship Earth</span>. <span class="publisher">Pocket Book</span>,
<abbr class="dtpublished" title="1970">1970</abbr>. <span
class="pages">127 pages</span>. ISBN: <span
<a href="http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=12227&t=1">Get Firefox!</a>
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the microformats-discuss