[microformats-discuss] Re: Proposing RelSource

[Tim White]

Eran said:
> I think it's actually quite common in the blogosphere. Consider the
> case
> where Ryan might quote a blog post made by tantek. I read Ryan's post
> but would like to respond to Tantek's opinions. The markup would be
> something like so:
> 
> ---- * ----
> <cite class="revreplyto"><a
> href="http://tantek.com/interesting-blog-post">Tantek
> said:</a></cite>
> <blockquote>
> Quoting from Tantek's post here...
> </blockquote>
> 
> Blah blah blah... 
> 
> Via: <cite class="relvia"><a
> href="http://theryanking.com/blog/blog-post-i-read">Ryan
> King</a></cite>
> ---- * ----
> 

OK - I see where you're going with this. But I would ask, what
difference does it make? Essentially you are creating a works cited
list for your post. So why not just code it:

---*---
<a href="http://tantek.com/interesting-blog-post" rel="cite">Tantek
said:</a>
<blockquote>
Quoting from Tantek's post here...
</blockquote>
 
Blah blah blah...

<a href="http://theryanking.com/blog/blog-post-i-read" rel="cite">Ryan
King</a>
---*---

Think back to writing research papers -- you've read lots of sources,
some referencing each other, but each ultimately it's own piece. At the
end you construct a bibliography/works cited. With your example, you
have read Tantek's comment and (presumably) Ryan's original post, so
you've created a works cited for your post. I really don't see a need
to differentiate between the two sources. I like the idea of keeping
the formats as simple as possible.

(Note: I realize that I eliminated the <cite> element. I suppose a
better structure would be <cite rel="source.uri"> or some such thing. I
don't have the spec handy at the moment.)



~ Tim

<a href="http://www.tjameswhite.com">www.tjameswhite.com</a>

<a href="http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&amp;id=12227&amp;t=1">Get Firefox!</a>


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs