[uf-discuss] entry permalink in hatom

[Scott Reynen]

Tantek Çelik wrote:

> Copying it though violates the DRY principle and unnecessarily  
> introduces a
> risk of introducing errors/changes from the spec.

Are we really applying the DRY principle to documentation?  Nobody  
uses rel-bookmark because nobody knows about it because nobody reads  
W3C specs in their entirety.  I think the benefits of explaining the  
elements of meaningful XHTML [1] clearly outweigh the risks of  
straying from the spec.  If we don't understand a section of the spec  
well enough to explain it to others, how can we expect to build  
microformats on top of XHTML?

> We should not duplicate things from other specs, we should  
> reference them.

False dichotomy.  We can both reference them and further explain them  
within the contexts of microformats.

> Thus perhaps we need a required reading section where we at least  
> list:
>  Specifications:
>  - HTML 4.01: http://w3.org/tr/html401
>  - XHTML 1.0: http://w3.org/tr/xhtml1

Those two specs are hundreds of pages long.  That's a hefty  
prerequisite to impose on someone who just wants to make their weblog  
markup a bit more semantic.

> Alternatively, one might say that the use of rel="bookmark" for blog
> permalinks is worthy of documenting as an explicit example, since  
> the HTML
> 4.01 spec makes no reference to blogs or permalinks.

I would lean this way, but I don't think this conversation is worth  
having until a rel-bookmark wiki page actually exists.  Right now  
we're discussing whether or not a hypothetical explanation of rel- 
bookmark is better than the W3C explanation.

Peace,
Scott

[1] http://tantek.com/presentations/2005/03/elementsofxhtml/