rsvp-brainstorming

(Difference between revisions)

Jump to: navigation, search
(Status: p-rsvp is now a draft property)
Current revision (14:34, 28 November 2016) (view source)
(added 'went' and 'did not go' semantics)
 
Line 57: Line 57:
* '''Maybe''' / might be going, there's some intent to attend
* '''Maybe''' / might be going, there's some intent to attend
* '''Interested''' / interested - this appears to be distinct from Maybe. It's used by [http://plancast.com Plancast] and [http://lanyrd.com Lanyrd], which don't have explicit "Maybe" options, and yet people use it differently than "Maybe". It's used almost to collect or recommend events - like bookmarking/linkblogging. [http://facebook.com Facebook] allows you to similarly "Save" an event, e.g. http://aaronparecki.com/uploads/facebook-saved-event-20150209-225455.png
* '''Interested''' / interested - this appears to be distinct from Maybe. It's used by [http://plancast.com Plancast] and [http://lanyrd.com Lanyrd], which don't have explicit "Maybe" options, and yet people use it differently than "Maybe". It's used almost to collect or recommend events - like bookmarking/linkblogging. [http://facebook.com Facebook] allows you to similarly "Save" an event, e.g. http://aaronparecki.com/uploads/facebook-saved-event-20150209-225455.png
 +
 +
Some other options may include past-tense forms of the above, more describing the action after the event took place.
 +
* '''Went'''
 +
* '''Did not go'''
== proposals ==
== proposals ==

Current revision

This article is a stub. You can help the microformats.org wiki by expanding it.

This is part of an effort to define an rsvp microformat for marking up rsvp notes posted on independent sites about or in-reply-to an event post. Per the microformats process:

Contents

analysis

From the news feed RSVP post example we know that event RSVP posts contain the following:

Much of this can be built from h-entry (for the RSVP), and h-event (for the nested event).

The "action links" would be better represented as web actions:

The only new things that an RSVP seems to need are:

For the RSVP options it seem there are five distinct semantics

Some other options may include past-tense forms of the above, more describing the action after the event took place.

proposals

h-entry plus additions

Status: this proposal is now a draft property in h-entry.

Just use h-entry with a few extra properties


To keep it simple, we don't need need to markup the nested event - since it can be discovered at the in-reply-to link.

The re-use of p-location from h-event is probably something we should add to h-entry anyway - it certainly has use beyond RSVP posts.

Similarly, we should formally add u-in-reply-to to h-entry as it has shown usefulness for comment posts, now RSVPs, and will likely be useful for any other kind of post which is in regard to some other post.

Which leaves the only really new property p-rsvp.

h-entry plus additions discussion

  • Is it worth introducing a separate/new h-rsvp top level microformat just for RSVPs for one new property?
    • I'm not sure it is worth introducing h-rsvp just for one new property. If further brainstorming shows RSVPs to need more than just one new property, we can reconsider. - Tantek
  • Or should we simply add p-rsvp as an optional property to h-entry?
    • I'm leaning towards the latter, since that is fewer additions, and seems simpler. - Tantek
  • Consider h-as-rsvp
    • Since RSVP is also a concept in activity-streams, and there has been some practice in the wild of annotating h-entries along with their activity stream object types (e.g. h-as-note, h-as-article, using -as- like a vendor prefix for activity streams concepts), it might be reasonable to annotate RSVP h-entry elements with h-as-rsvp as well. - Tantek
rsvp-brainstorming was last modified: Monday, November 28th, 2016

Views