[uf-discuss] Should microformat features (like rel-tag) have
Derrick Lyndon Pallas
derrick at pallas.us
Thu Feb 1 18:14:43 PST 2007
> My point is that rel-tag doesn't have any scope, and I'm sort-of
> arguing it doesn't need it.
Except it does need it. Say you put your del.icio.us (or otherwise) feed
on your page and want to include it and the associated tags as xFolk
entries. How can a generic rel-tag parser know that the xFolk entires
don't apply to the current page without knowing about xFolk. That's the
> However, a generic rel-tag parser doesn't need to know "don't look
> inside hAtom and hCard", as you seem to be suggesting. Any rel-tags
> it finds may be applied to the page itself quite fairly, and so a
> rel-tag parser would say 'this page contains something relevant to FOO
> and something relevant to BAR.
False. The example above demonstrates that there is a use-case for
having an explicit scope. In fact, the issue was brought up on the
rel-tag-issues page 20060404 and has never been resolved. The problem is
not that they "may be applied to the page" it's that they "are applied
to the page" and there are reasons that is inappropriate, i.e. we need
to indicate scope. My solution (to indicate scope with a generic rel-tag
counterpart and then allow specific parsers to override the scoping rule
if they understand the containing element) is both general and powerful.
Take the example of a dead relative: there is no way to put a family
tree with relatives you need to tag as "deceased" on your own page
without a document level parser concluding that you are dead.
More information about the microformats-discuss