timber at lava.net
Mon Jan 1 10:00:21 PST 2007
On Jan 1, 2007, at 7:29 AM, Ciaran McNulty wrote:
> On 1/1/07, Colin Barrett <timber at lava.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 2007, at 5:51 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>> > I thought tagging was for tagging the current page, not labelling a
>> > link
>> > to a second page.
>> It could be expanded to include links? -- I don't know a whole lot
>> about it, it was suggested in the discussion I had with someone where
>> it was pointed out that this is an incorrect use of rel.
> I don't believe rel-tag is an incorrect use of 'rel'. @rel="tag"
> means that the page being linked to is a tag for the current page.
> The linked page should ideally contain a definition of what the tag
I didn't mean to imply that rel-tag was an improper use of rel. I
> Another @rel value that is more similar to the @rel="nsfw" would be
> @rel="no-follow", which is trying to express an opinion about the
> linked page rather than describing the link relationship.
Not really -- it's saying that this link isn't a link that should be
followed by an automated search engine. The relationship between
document A and document B is "don't follow if you're a search engine".
You can't really find an appropriate way to finish the sentence "The
relationship between document A and document B is ________" with rel-
nsfw. It's a pretty good litmus test for the correct usage of @rel.
More information about the microformats-discuss