[uf-discuss] Should microformat features (like rel-tag) have explicit scope?

[Ciaran McNulty]

On 2/1/07, Derrick Lyndon Pallas <derrick at pallas.us> wrote:
> What about an xFolk link with a tag of <http://wikipedia.org/wiki/NSFW>?
> Should that imply that the containing page is not safe for work?

Well if an item on a page is tagged NSFW doesn't that mean the page is
NSFW?  I must confess I'm not 100% familiar with xFolk.

> rel-tag is reusable. It applies to whatever contains it. Well, except
> under specific circumstances which are documented in the other formats
> in which it has been reused, then it only applies to a sub-container,
> which we didn't mark in a generic way.
>
> I'm just looking for a generic scoping mark. ~D

My point is that rel-tag doesn't have any scope, and I'm sort-of
arguing it doesn't need it.

Take the example of a page that contains:

* An hAtom entry tagged with 'FOO'
* An hCard with the category 'BAR'

An hAtom parser will correctly note that the only rel-tag in the hAtom
entry is 'FOO' and so that's the category for the entry.  An hCard
parser will note that the only rel-tag inside the hCard is 'BAR, and
so that category applies to the card.

However, a generic rel-tag parser doesn't need to know "don't look
inside hAtom and hCard", as you seem to be suggesting.  Any rel-tags
it finds may be applied to the page itself quite fairly, and so a
rel-tag parser would say 'this page contains something relevant to FOO
and something relevant to BAR.

Does that make sense?

-Ciaran McNulty