[microformats-discuss] xFolk 0.4

[Ryan King]

On Jul 10, 2005, at 7:29 PM, Bud Gibson wrote:
> Hi Eran:
>
> First off, xFolk has now graduated to RC1 and is on the wiki here:
>
> http://microformats.org/wiki/xfolk
>
> Your points still holds for the latest version, and I'm open to  
> discussion on them.  Let me provide a few reactions inline.  I'll  
> put these on the issues list also.
>
> On Jul 10, 2005, at 21:13, Eran wrote:
>
>
>>> From a semantic standpoint I find that "taggedLink" is  
>>> misleading, the
>> tags are not comments on the link, they are comments on the _linked
>> page_ (as represented by its URL). The subject, if you will, is the
>> resource _pointed at_ by the link. To represent this concept   
>> better we
>> should use a class name like "taggedResource" or even just "tagged".
>> This might look like nitpicking but we are, after all, discussing
>> semantics here.
>
> Back in xFolk 0.3, the class was actually called xTagged which hits  
> at exactly what you are talking about.  What might be the issue  
> with using just the word "tagged" or "xTagged"?  At the time, there  
> was some discussion in email about just what was being tagged.  At  
> the end of the day, in a distributed web tagging system like xFolk  
> or reltag, you need  an address to point to because the data cannot  
> be assumed to be on your site.  The way to do this for items on the  
> web is to point at a URL.
>
> I suppose one could say taggedurl, but isn't that the same as  
> taggedlink?

I thin Eran is suggested a return to something like xtagged.

> Taggedresource seems less precise in light of this discussion as  
> does tagged.  And I do think we need to be precise here because in  
> xFolk, we are talking about things with a web presence.
>
> In emerging standards like the geo microformat or even hReview,  
> there is a notion that you may be talking about things that are not  
> on the web.  The interesting point there, is that the web seems to  
> be frequently assumed as a way of resolving their location.
>
>> As a follow-up, I'd like to bring up a question: would it be  
>> possible to
>> use class="tagged" on different types of elements? Say, an IMG, or  
>> even
>> just a SPAN? That would make it easier to tag rich-media objects in
>> their "natural form", improving the microformats readability for  
>> people
>> (when looking at a tagged image I expect to see an image not a  
>> link to
>> one).
>
> I see no immediate reason not to take the <img> element into  
> account.  This is a very good point.  As for <span>, I see it  
> potentially having an identification issue as I discussed above.   
> As a side note, in a discussion of semantics, <span> seems to be  
> the least semantic of elements.

Span's could also be done as a link:

<span title="mypermalink" class ="tagged"> the thing you're taggin' </ 
span>

Of course, if you're doing author-tagging inline, you don't even  
really need xFolk, you could just use rel-tag.

-ryan


> I'd like to hear some other opinions on both of these if people  
> have any views.  Eran, what's your reaction to the whole link  
> discussion?
>
> Bud
>
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://mic