[microformats-discuss] Re: Proposing RelSource

[Tim White]

Eran said:
>Not quite, I'm describing a distributed conversation. ...

Ah - this makes more sense now, especially now that I've had time to
read the citation-brainstorm entry fully
(http://www.microformats.org/wiki/citation-brainstorming), as well as
the linked documents. I didn't get why you wanted to distinguish the
type of citation, but that's my own short-coming since I haven't really
participated in distributed conversations as you and Ryan illustrate
them. I'm used to a more print-centered research approach. (More on
that in a moment.)

>1. "cite" is not a valid value for a rel attribute.
>2. if we're to expand XHTML, it's better to do it by reusing existing
elements as much as possible. The CITE element already exists and has
the semantic context we need.
>3. rel="cite" is not specific enough to solve the problem.

Thank you for the corrections. I would have looked up the specs last
night, but I had a screaming one month old daughter to attend to. : )


>Rel="source.uri" doesn't seem to make much sense. Under XHTML2.0 we
could use
<cite cite="source.url" rel="via">
But as far as I can tell, those attributes are not available under
XHTML1.0.

That's exactly what I wanted to type (see reason above). I didn't
realize, however, that it wasn't available under XHTML 1.0.

So, I now agree with your ideas (class="relVia", class="relUpdate",
class="relReplyTo"). However, I don't quite follow why you want to keep
the rel prefix for now though? If class="Via" will work now, and in the
future simply become rel="Via", why not go that route? (I'm slow, dense
and new to this, so bear with me.)

And that brings me back to my print-center question.  Your scope
focuses on distributed online discussions (i.e.: blog-to-blog), but
what would be the format if I were to reference a print piece? For
example, if I were to post an entry after reading an article:

---* My blog entry *---

In his essay "Hemmingway and Fish" (<cite>Times Literary Supplement,
June 1998</cite>), Mr. Haute contents....

---* *---

I'm referencing a piece I've read, so <cite> would be the appropriate
element. Would anything else be needed? A link to the TLS website
perhaps[1]? Would something like "relPrint" be appropriate?

(Even if the piece where republished online, I would cite the printed
piece (my primary source). I've seen how things can change from print
to online.)

Thanks for your patience and corrections.

~ Tim
www.tjameswhite.com/blog


[1] I could see coding it as (XHTL 2) <cite
cite="http://www.the-tls.co.uk/">Times Literary Supplement, June
1998</cite>, but doesn't seem quite appropriate as it doesn't like to
the article. Perhaps <cite><a href="http://www.the-tls.co.uk/">Times
Literary Supplement</a>, June 1998</cite> simply to point out TLS's website?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com