[uf-discuss] hAtom draft

Ryan King ryan at technorati.com
Sun Dec 4 14:47:07 PST 2005

On Dec 4, 2005, at 9:15 AM, David Janes -- BlogMatrix wrote:
> Ryan King wrote:
>> 4. Why do we prefer <h#> over class="title" for entry titles?
> See my earlier note. I'd really appreciate if you or Tantek got  
> back to me here: my understanding is that we'd always prefer  
> appropriate XHTML constructs.

Yes, I'd say we should prefer the appropriate html construct.

In this particular case, though, I'm afraid using <h#> is a bit  
brittle- this is coming from helping triage support requests coming  
into Technorati about us not indexing their blog properly. For this  
particular element I would prefer:

1. an explicit classname (most people are using a classname already,  
2. fallback to <h#>

I think the explicit declaration should be preferred, but this is  
just a suggestion. I know that other xhtml-syndication efforts have  
used <h#> for entry titles, but I'm not sure of their success. Anyone  
with experience here, please speak up.

>> 5. "Entry Permalinks MUST be absolute URIs". Why? We have well  
>> established rules for relative urls.
> I could lower this to SHOULD; feedback would be appreciated.

I think requiring absolute URIs is a bit too high a hurdle, not not  
quite neccessary.

> However, what I'm trying to accomplish is to let "rel-bookmark"  
> provide byte comparable strings for providing "the best location  
> for this resource".

Like I said, the rules for transforming relative URIs to absolute  
ones are pretty well established, so any consumer should be able to  
take care of this for themselves. I think this is just a case where  
we need to optimize for the publisher over the consumer.

> The problem with relative URIs is that readers at "http:// 
> instapundit.com" and at "http://www.instapundit.com" will come up  
> with two different sets of Entry Permalinks that are actually  
> representing the same resources.
> This even gets uglier with LiveJournal. I do recognize this may be  
> an attempt at some mild social engineering on my part.

FWIW, there has been some (offline and on-) discussion about a rel- 
canonical microformat. Maybe hAtom should defer this problem (*it is*  
bigger than just atom/blogs).

>> 6. quote:
>>> there can be at most 1 Entry in an XHTML document without an  
>>> Entry Permalink; the Entry Permalink of this Entry is the URI of  
>>> the page
>>> This rule is needed for media pages (i.e. a news article on  
>>> cnn.com). There is some ugliness of with this because the URI  
>>> could be non-canonical."
>> I'm not sure I follow this and don't see anything on the  
>> brainstorming page about it.
> It's in the blog-post-examples [1]. I'd like to make in practical  
> for organizations such as CNN to markup pages such as [2] in hAtom  
> without requiring them rewriting the way they do pages.

So the use-case is a "document with one entry"? Is this really worth  
making a general rule about?

> ...
> It's all great -- bring it on. I'm back in fighting shape :-)


Ryan King
ryan at technorati.com

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list