[uf-discuss] Authoritative hCards [was RE: Canonical hCards (was: Search on CSS element)]

Scott Reynen scott at randomchaos.com
Wed Jan 24 06:31:14 PST 2007

On Jan 23, 2007, at 8:46 PM, Joe Andrieu wrote:

> Tantek Ç elik wrote
>> None of those examples given are actually "canonical"
>> sources, they're merely citations and quotations of sources
>> (for which we have existing HTML semantics for: <cite> <q
>> cite> <blockquote cite>.  The semantic of canonicality is not
>> necessarily implied, only that the content came from
>> somewhere else, not that that somewhere else is the best /
>> most representative (i.e. canonical) instance of that content.
> I think we don't mean "canonical" here, and perhaps fixing that will
> clarify a use case that distinguishes the opportunity.
> What I think is much more useful is /authoritative/ hCards.  Meaning
> that this is the author's truth for this reference.  The authoritative
> reference is the root source of the reference.  It is close to
> definitive, but definitive assumes objectivity, whereas authoritative
> retains the subjectivity of the author.

I agree.  Only one person knows the canonical source for a given  
hCard (and even then it may change, e.g. in hCards used as OpenIDs).   
Everyone else can at best point to the best authority they know.

> Working through this leads me to think that an hCard that exists at  
> its
> self-referenced URI should be considered "authoritative."

My concern about this is that many publishers (myself included) try  
to avoid linking a page to itself due to usability concerns, e.g. "I  
just clicked on that link and didn't go anywhere.  This site is broken."


More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list