[uf-discuss] rel-xxx proposal
Charles Iliya Krempeaux
supercanadian at gmail.com
Wed Oct 26 15:32:42 PDT 2005
On 10/26/05, Ryan King <ryan at technorati.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2005, at 2:48 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
> > Hello,
> > On 10/26/05, Edward O'Connor <hober0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>> This proposed Microformat is a way for page to "mark" what's at the
> >>> end of the href -- in this case http://xxx-site.example.com/ --
> >>> is an
> >>> XXX site.
> >> OK.
> >>> <a rel="xxx" href="http://xxx-site.example.com/">XXX Site</a>
> >> Using the rel attribute for this strikes me as wrong.
> >> Quoting <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#adef-
> >> rel>:
> >> This attribute describes the relationship *from the
> >> current document* to the anchor specified by the href
> >> attribute. [Emphasis mine.]
> >> Surely, whether or not the site you're linking to is XXX/NSFW/
> >> whatever
> >> is quite independent of its relationship to *your* site.
> >> Perhaps class="xxx" would be better in this case.
> > It has become common practice to use URL's and webpages to represent
> > "people", to represent "groups", and to represent "ideas".
> > If that is the case then, for example, if a webpage had rel-xxx on it
> > and that webpage represented a person -- let's say Joe Blow -- then it
> > would be saying:
> > Joe Blow considers what's at the end of that URL to be XXX
> > (pornographic) material.
> Actually, no. The rel attribute declares the relation between Jow
> Blow and "that URL," not "that URL"
> So, in essence, rel="xxx" means "the relationship between this and
> that is xxx". Not what you're going for.
So wouldn't that then mean XFN is wrong too?
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
charles @ reptile.ca
supercanadian @ gmail.com
developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
Never forget where you came from
More information about the microformats-discuss