[uf-discuss] Level of rel=contact

[Sarven Capadisli]

On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 22:48 +0000, Brian Suda wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Sarven Capadisli <info at csarven.ca> wrote:
> > I'm thinking that rel="contact" is generally attributed to someone that
> > we have at least a "lowest form of friendship" with.  [...]
> > Additionally,
> > if the user doesn't have control over the declaration of such
> > relationship, wouldn't it be more meaningful and safer to exclude this
> > bit of information in the output?
> 
> --- You lost me on "exclude this", exclude what exactly?

My bad. My reference was to the example.

> rel=contact
> isn't symmetrical, so you might be my contact, but i'm not yours. I
> can't control what you declare about me.

That's exactly the case I was working with.

> > The example I had in mind was 'Subscribers list' at
> > http://identi.ca/csarven
> 
> --- if you are subscribing to someone, then it probably at minimum
> meets the definition of: someone that we have at least a "lowest form
> of friendship"
> 
> Are you suggesting it isn't and we should exclude it?

No, I'll clarify. What I was trying to say was that, if I have a profile
page where it lists a bunch of people that are subscribed to me, I
wouldn't necessarily call them my contact since I don't really know
them. Hence, in my example at http://identi.ca/csarven , rel=contact
should be removed from Subscribers list. I agree that rev="contact"
makes more sense here, but, I'm focused on the incorrect use of
rel="contact".

rel=contact is/should be reserved for people that meets the basic
requirement of that "lowest form of friendship". In loose terms, it
would be someone that I acknowledge or okay with. Do you agree with this
general definition?

I was looking for clarification on the "someone you know" bit. Thanks.

-Sarven