[uf-discuss] Multiple vote-links

[Bruno Barberi Gnecco]

>>> VoteLinks are quite muddy and their meaning is pretty unclear.
> 
> I'd disagree there. The intent is clear -to be able to express
> agreement and disagreement with a linked-to page from the current
> context.
> 
> In practice, however, rel-nofollow has won out as disagreement, with
> plain links as agreement. The formulation above:
> 
> 
>  <a rev="vote-for" rel="nofollow" href="...">Like</a>
> 
> has 2 votes for the same thing, as rel="nofollow" is equivalent to
> rev="vote-abstain" - very hard to work out what your intent is there,.

	rel="nofollow" is used by many search engines as "don't follow this link" instead of 
the definition in the wiki: "SHOULD NOT be afforded any additional weight...". This is 
why it's there. I know robots.txt should handle this instead (it does), but many 
crawlers don't.

>>        It would be nice to have a more general microformat for associating a target with a "label", more or less like xfn.
> 
> you mean tagging a linked-to page? that's what xfolk is for:
> 
> http://microformats.org/wiki/xfolk
> 
> though in practice hReview seems to be used more widely for this.

	I don't mean for tags that already exist, but the action of tagging itself.

>> Again, the problem of "acting on" vs "having acted on" that confused me shows up. How about something like this rough draft to follow.
>>
>>        For acting on (polling):
>>
>> <div about="#something" class="item">
>>        <a href="..." rel="action:like">I like cheese</a>
>>        <a href="..." rel="action:blue">I think cheese is always blue</a>
>> </div>
>>
>>        For having acted on (similar to vote-links)
>>
>> <div about="#me" class="item">
>>        <a href="..." rev="opinion:like">I like cheese</a>
>>        <p href="..." rev="opinion:blue">I think cheese is always blue</a>
>> </div>
>>
>>        Although I think this later one should also have information about who likes it (perhaps an hCard), since we could, for example, have a list of expert opinions about cheese. But I don't like the exchanges of roles of "about" (I hope I got it right).
> 
> I think that HTML forms would likely be the dominant way to express a
> voting user interface when you did the analysis of existing markup
> that is a key part of the process; re-expressing this for links seems
> like a big step back.

	I agree, the links were just shorter to type. For example:

<form action="/something" method="POST">
	<button type="submit" name="vote" value="like">I like it</button>
	<input type="submit" name="vote" value="hate">I hate it</button>
</form>

	I think it would be useful to have a microformat which says: "this form is a poll 
about xxx". Is there one already? Does anybody else think it'd be useful?