[uf-discuss] Re: VIA or VIA SELF to indicate authoritativehCard
john at westciv.com
Thu Feb 15 18:13:33 PST 2007
On 16/02/2007, at 10:14 AM, Edward O'Connor wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>> At the moment, the only "market demand" for "related" hCards is in
>> your email.
> FWIW, at Eventful we have a clear need for related hCards, a need
> is currently well-served by URL+UID. So there is some market demand.
as the originator of the (great grandparent?) thread, I also think
that a "related hCard" has a huge use case. In the conferences we
run, we mark up all speakers with hCard. Typcially this is nothing
ore than their name and a url - fn, url
In fact, wherever you publish a name in reference to a person or
organization, news stories, blog posts, ... it seems a very useful
It would be nice to point this at a more detailed hCard.
The logical hierarchy, if one exists, for "more..." hcards I'd
1. more detailed - a link from an hCard to another, more detailed
one. Regardless of who makes the link (the owner of the hCard or a
third party) it carries no assetion as to authority.
2. more detailed with an assertion that the linked hCard is in some
way authoritative, or canonical. There are two distinct cases. 2a.I
point to my own authoritative hCard. 2b. Someone else points to my
I'd suggest anecdotally that 1 and 2a are the most commonly found
circumstances, and indeed, the combination of the two probably solves
I think 1 is a lot easier to solve than 2a or b, because it makes
less strongs assertion about the nature of the linked hCard, - only
that it contains more detail about the same person.
> Edward O'Connor
> hober0 at gmail.com
> Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
More information about the microformats-discuss