[uf-discuss] class="url"?

Siegfried Gipp siegfried at rorkvell.de
Sun Nov 5 09:06:08 PST 2006

Am Sonntag, 5. November 2006 17:29 schrieb Brian Suda:

> --- having ONLY data related to vcard and vevent is not practical, it
> forces people to change the way they already publish, it does not
> allow for extensiblity to embed multiple microformats inside one
> another. If vevents could ONLY contain vevent information, then you
> could never use a vcard for the location.
That's not true. hCard data within a vCard record is well related to that 
hCard and thus absolutely not random data.

> It may seem redundant, but it is the only way to disambiguate random
> links with links associated with the vcard/vevent
That is a point already mentioned. And this may indeed be true. Although still 
i think _inside_ a vCard or vEvent record there sould not be random links, 
but only links related to that hCard or vEvent. 

> --- You have to remember that the VCARD spec was created many many
> years ago, there are TYPEs for EMAIL that pre-date URL structure and
> are propretary schema. MAILTO: and SMTP have eventually won out. So
> EMAIL, in hCard is a specialized type of URL.
> Class="url" can be used to associate IM protocols as well:
> <address class="vcard">
>     <a class="url" href="jabber:someone at bla.blub">jabber account</a>
> </address>

Still this is no random data, it is an information related to that hCard 
record. And still the usage of the <a> element and the href attribute should 
be sufficient to mark that as a url.
But: Is this type of url what is specified as content for the URL field in 

> > So exploring this, class="url" would only make sense in two very
> > different cases: 1. You really include a url within the container.
> > 2. You define that "url" does not mean a general url, but specifically
> > the url to the "homepage". This would be a matter of definition and
> > should be clarified. In this case, "homepage" would be the better class
> > name, but since the VCARD specification already uses url, i think it's
> > better to stick to that. Although then url as defined here would have a
> > different meaning than url defined at the w3c. It would be possible, but
> > should be clarified.
> --- i don't understand how you are relating URL to homepage in your
> 2nd point. I don't think HOMEPAGE is a better class name. In many
> cases for events you want to point to the very
> specific-deep-linked-page for that event and therefore it is not a
> homepage, but simple a URL. 
Homepage is meant as homepage for this specific hCard or vCard record. That 
may be as deep-linked as you want, it is still the specific homepage for this 

> I'm also not sure how the Microformat 
> definition of URL differs from the W3C version?

What does the URL field in VCARD contain? Any arbitrary url? No specific 

The w3c specification of a url is indeed any arbitrary url, whatever it might 
be. Any protocol specifier, any purpose.

(copied from above)
> It may seem redundant, but it is the only way to disambiguate random
> links with links associated with the vcard/vevent
So what now? Do we define that any link within a hCard/vEvent record is by 
definition related to that record? Then any url here, marked up in any way, 
is just related to that record, but has no further special "url" meaning. Or, 
does a hCard/vEvent record contain random urls, of which only one is related 
to the record? Then you may consider to classify this one and only link with 
class="url". But then the meaning of this url is not "any general url", since 
it is not any url to any random data, but it is _the one specific_ url. This 
is different from the w3c definitions.

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list