[microformats-discuss] URIs please!

[Peter Janes]

Bud Gibson wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2005, at 6:14, Danny Ayers wrote:
>> Sure, there's an advantage in having well-known semantic markup terms,
>> the vocabularies defined in microformats. But for automatic discovery
>> and processing it's also hugely beneficial to be able to recognise
>> microformat data unambiguously. The doc can be processed in a way
>> appropriate for the microformat. The profile URI provides this
>> disambiguation and allows deterministic processing.
[...]
 > I could not agree more with the issue you raise and was just thinking
 > on this issue as I went to sleep last night and woke this morning.  I
 > included this issue in the XMDP brainstorming on this wiki page:
 >
 > http://microformats.org/wiki/xmdp-brainstorming
 >
 > The person who joined me as page author is not in agreement with us  and
 > has marked this issue as REJECTED, with a signed objection on the  page
 > from me.

I've had a bit of previous offline discussion with Tantek, and it's been my 
impression that he's in favour of requiring linked profiles (since that was 
exactly what we discussed).  I think the rejection of "Just because a profile 
value mentioned in a microformat's linked XMDP also appears in the document 
does not mean that that microformat is in use." is more one of 
wording/interpretation, since it could be taken to mean:

- "just because I've listed the XFN profile doesn't mean that I use any of the 
values defined in it"
- "just because I've listed the XFN profile doesn't mean that rel='met' means 
what it says in XFN" or

I think the purpose of the statement was to express the former argument, and 
the objection is to interpreting it as the latter.

Peter J.