anti-design-patterns: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
m (Reverted edits by BaszeLlida (Talk) to last version by AndyMabbett) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Problems: | Problems: | ||
* Indicating the ''type'' of the information does not indicate the ''semantic''. | * Indicating the ''type'' of the information does not indicate the ''semantic''. This was one of the mistakes in the design of XML-RPC '''(citation needed)''' and should not be propagated to rel values. | ||
* In particular such a rel value | * In particular such a rel value fails to capture and represent/indicate an explicit semantic, like "this over here is my hCard". See [[hcard-brainstorming#Auto-Discovery|hCard brainstorming on auto-discovery]] for current thoughts on this problem. | ||
== See | == See also == | ||
* [[design-patterns]] | *[[design-patterns]] | ||
*[[anti-patterns]] | |||
*[[social-network-anti-patterns]] | |||
Latest revision as of 19:00, 20 December 2008
anti-design-patterns
Just as there are design-patterns to encourage and follow, there are anti-design-patterns to discourage and avoid.
rel formatname
rel="formatname", e.g. rel="hcard"
Problems:
- Indicating the type of the information does not indicate the semantic. This was one of the mistakes in the design of XML-RPC (citation needed) and should not be propagated to rel values.
- In particular such a rel value fails to capture and represent/indicate an explicit semantic, like "this over here is my hCard". See hCard brainstorming on auto-discovery for current thoughts on this problem.