[uf-discuss] Vote Links: rel="voted-for"

[Ara Pehlivanian]

> To clarify, microformats specs don't seek to constrain HTML at all.
> They only describe expected behavior among those who have arrived at
> a rough consensus about specific bits of HTML.  But you're free to,
> and furthermore encouraged to, use other bits of HTML as well.  Not
> every bit of useful HTML semantics belongs in a microformat.  Maybe
> this bit does, or maybe it doesn't, but the lack of a microformat
> should never prevent you from making your own HTML markup more
> descriptive.

I agree with the idea that we should first use the semantics offered
by HTML before creating a microformat. But microformats are an
agreement among community members on certain standard usages of
semantic class names and other attributes when the HTML spec either
doesn't supply what's necessary, or more specific uses are required
(as in standardized class names).

What I meant by the word constraint was the fact that the spec for
Vote Links originally stated that you should exclusively use the
rel="" attribute to mark up a Vote Link, and then was changed to more
correctly reflect the nature of the relationship by using the rev=""
attribute--once again exclusively. This means that according to the
microformats spec for Vote Links, a vote link goes one way. Sure, you
can use a rel attribute to link back, but that doesn't mean that the
usage will be standardized (aggregator friendly, etc...). Hence my
proposal to specify the proper usage of both rev and rel.

I don't agree that you can simply use rel="vote-for" because it
incorrectly gives the impression that you're "voting for" when really
you were "voted for", hence my suggestion to use the following:

rev="vote-for"
rev="vote-against"
rev="vote-abstain"

rel="voted-for"
rel="voted-against"
rel="vote-abstained"

Because really, the relationship isn't the same in both directions.

Your thoughts?
A.