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