[microformats-discuss] URIs please!

Thu Jul 14 14:25:09 PDT 2005

On 7/14/05, Ryan King <ryan at technorati.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I don't think
> anyone's arguing against profile urls.

I'm trying to suggest that all microformat documents SHOULD (in the
RFC2119 sense) contain a URI/URIs by which their profile(s) can be
identified.

> > I understand there's ongoing discussion about declaring that a
> > microformat is in use in doc fragments (where the <head> is
> > unavailable). I don't know whether the use of an <a> hyperlink is the
> > best mechanism or not (a possible alternative might be to use a URI
> > for the outermost microformat term, e.g.  <div
> > class="http://example.org/some/microformat/schema/xfolkentry">).
> 
> How is this different from
> 
> <div class="xfolkentry">
> 
> ?

It's a URI. See:
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-benefits

> > But however it's done, identification of the microformat used within
> > the doc by means of a URI (the GUID of the Web) is essential IMHO to
> > make the difference between making quality, globally unambiguous data
> > available and something barely less fragile than screenscraping as it
> > stands.
> 
> I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you.

That's very good news, but doesn't appear to be reflected in the current docs.

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com