[uf-discuss] Re: XPN: Xhtml Professional Network - idea
strategicpause at gmail.com
Sun Jan 28 19:28:42 PST 2007
On 1/28/07, Ben Buchanan <microformats at 200ok.com.au> wrote:
> I wasn't saying all business/clients were friends - my point was just
> that creating a "business only" microformat seems counter productive.
> I think XFN and XPN should be superseded by one single, combined
> relationships microformat which can cover all bases.
I agree here. The heart of XFN/XPN is to define your relationship
with someone. However, they are both somewhat discriminate in regards
to the types of relationships that can be defined. Instead I agree
and support the notion that there should be a single relationship uF
that embrace all relationship statuses (friendly, business, etc.). By
being so broad, it would make the uF much more scalable than something
that is more specific. This way we can keep discussions to agreed
upon rel values.
> If someone only wanted to show a friends network they could; if a
> company only wants to show business relationships they could do that
> too. Nobody would be alienated with a combined uf.
> I would happily see XFN extended with business relationships since
> it's only the name which prevents that happening. Rename it from
> "friends network" to "relationship network" or something and it's all
> good :)
Relationship network sounds good to me; it's to the point and not too specific.
> To approach it another way - XFN is essentially just an addon to
> blogrolls. A business blogroll does not have any requirements that
> cannot be met by XFN's pattern - it's just that XFN is limited to a
> narrow set of "friend" relationships (although they spill over to
> professional as well, with colleague etc). We could extend XFN - which
> is already adopted by many people/sites - to include more values and
> avoid creating competing ufs.
More information about the microformats-discuss