rejected-formats: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
(→Logo: main article) |
||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
==Content Rating== | == In General == | ||
*Suggested: July 2006 | |||
In general, [[abstract-formats]] and [[abstract-properties]] (i.e. not based on actual real world examples) tend to be rejected quite quickly by the microformats [[process]]. | |||
==Content Rating == | |||
*Suggested: July 2006 | |||
*Discussion list thread [http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-July/004942.html] | *Discussion list thread [http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-July/004942.html] | ||
*Solution: use [[rel-tag]] | *Solution: use [[rel-tag]] | ||
== Logo == | |||
{{main|rel-logo}} | |||
* [[rel-logo|rel="logo"]] [http://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=existing-rel-values&diff=44990&oldid=44989 proposed 2011-11-24] to "Specify an SVG logo." | |||
* No need for a new rel value for a specific MIME/content-type. That's what the 'type' attribute is for. | |||
* Pre-existing solutions: '''use <code>rel="icon" type="image/svg+xml"</code>'''. If the intent was to actually convey the semantic of a "logo" differently/distinctly from an "icon", then use [[hcard|hCard]], in particular, the "logo" property. In practice the two semantics are often conflated. | |||
==Pavatar== | |||
* [[rel-pavatar|rel="pavatar"]] [http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-December/007884.html suggested Dec 28 2006] | |||
*[http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-December/007919.html Pre-existing solution]: use [[hcard|hCard]], in particular, "photo" and/or "logo" properties. | |||
==Wine== | ==Wine== | ||
| Line 16: | Line 30: | ||
*Suggested: November 2006 | *Suggested: November 2006 | ||
*Discussion list threads [http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-November/007125.html] [http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-November/007179.html] | *Discussion list threads [http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-November/007125.html] [http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-November/007179.html] | ||
*Solution: use [[hlisting]] - Further exploratory discussion required | *Solution: use the proposed [[hlisting]] - Further exploratory discussion required | ||
Latest revision as of 01:57, 12 February 2013
Previously proposed and rejected Microformats
Below is a listing of microformats that have been suggested and have never made it to a draft version (please add to this list). With each are related discussions and links so that you can find out why they were rejected etc.
The purpose of this page is to help reduce the number of proposals and rejections of the same or similar concept too reguarly. Also, it may serve as a log of which concepts are reguarly proposed and therefore it may be worthwhile to re-evaluate their usefulness.
In General
In general, abstract-formats and abstract-properties (i.e. not based on actual real world examples) tend to be rejected quite quickly by the microformats process.
Content Rating
Logo
Main article: rel-logo
- rel="logo" proposed 2011-11-24 to "Specify an SVG logo."
- No need for a new rel value for a specific MIME/content-type. That's what the 'type' attribute is for.
- Pre-existing solutions: use
rel="icon" type="image/svg+xml". If the intent was to actually convey the semantic of a "logo" differently/distinctly from an "icon", then use hCard, in particular, the "logo" property. In practice the two semantics are often conflated.
Pavatar
- rel="pavatar" suggested Dec 28 2006
- Pre-existing solution: use hCard, in particular, "photo" and/or "logo" properties.
Wine
(The drink, not the software)