xfn-issues - Revision history

Tantek: issue resolved and closed re: XFN meaning of rel=contact

2024-11-10T12:55:27Z

issue resolved and closed re: XFN meaning of rel=contact

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 == Closed Issues ==
 Resolved issues that have no further actions to take.  These will likely be moved to a separate page like [[xfn-issues-closed]].
 * ...
@@ Line 79: / Line 89: @@
 * {{OpenIssue}} 2008-02-01 raised by [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]
 *# rel-me injection.  If a site allows 3rd parties to enter markup into their pages, it may be possible for a 3rd party to enter a hyperlink, perhaps even a hyperlink with a rel attribute, which would enable errant rel-me links.  No such known example exists, but the issue has been raised as a possibility, since such sites (or web site software) might exist.  If any example is found, please add them to [[rel-me-injection-sites]].
 </div>

Tantek: Reverted edits by ABIDEEN10 (Talk) to last version by Chris Messina

2013-04-07T04:52:18Z

Reverted edits by ABIDEEN10 (Talk) to last version by Chris Messina

Show changes

ABIDEEN10 at 03:52, 7 April 2013

2013-04-07T03:52:52Z

Show changes

Chris Messina at 22:42, 3 October 2008

2008-10-03T22:42:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:42, 3 October 2008
Line 40:		Line 40:
	#* Per the [[process]], where is the evidence that people publish links using terms like "parent", rather than "mother" or "father" ? [[User:AndyMabbett\|Andy Mabbett]] 12:57, 2 Feb 2008 (PST)		#* Per the [[process]], where is the evidence that people publish links using terms like "parent", rather than "mother" or "father" ? [[User:AndyMabbett\|Andy Mabbett]] 12:57, 2 Feb 2008 (PST)
	#** Per the [[process]] and the [[principles]] any references to mother and/or father were simplified (see microformat principle as simple as possible) to simply "parent", as well as removing the unnecessary binding of gender information which makes more sense to keep in one place (with the profile of the person) rather than duplicating across every link (and thus violating the DRY principle). [[User:Tantek\|Tantek]] 12:37, 5 Feb 2008 (PST)		#** Per the [[process]] and the [[principles]] any references to mother and/or father were simplified (see microformat principle as simple as possible) to simply "parent", as well as removing the unnecessary binding of gender information which makes more sense to keep in one place (with the profile of the person) rather than duplicating across every link (and thus violating the DRY principle). [[User:Tantek\|Tantek]] 12:37, 5 Feb 2008 (PST)
	#** I'd like to second Tantek's argument. The object of the rel-value should maintain the current gender state (as a design principle, if the gender changes, the change should be reflected on the profile, not in the relationship; gender should have no bearing on the kin/parent relationship). [[User:~~Tantek~~\|~~Tantek~~]] 12:37, ~~5 Feb~~ 2008 (PST)		#** I'd like to second Tantek's argument. The object of the rel-value should maintain the current gender state (as a design principle, if the gender changes, the change should be reflected on the profile, not in the relationship; gender should have no bearing on the kin/parent relationship). [[User:Chris_Messina\|Chris Messina]] 3:42, 3 Oct 2008 (PST)
	</div>		</div>
	</div>		</div>

Chris Messina: added support to tantek's argument against gender in rel-values

2008-10-03T22:41:57Z

added support to tantek's argument against gender in rel-values

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:41, 3 October 2008
Line 40:		Line 40:
	#* Per the [[process]], where is the evidence that people publish links using terms like "parent", rather than "mother" or "father" ? [[User:AndyMabbett\|Andy Mabbett]] 12:57, 2 Feb 2008 (PST)		#* Per the [[process]], where is the evidence that people publish links using terms like "parent", rather than "mother" or "father" ? [[User:AndyMabbett\|Andy Mabbett]] 12:57, 2 Feb 2008 (PST)
	#** Per the [[process]] and the [[principles]] any references to mother and/or father were simplified (see microformat principle as simple as possible) to simply "parent", as well as removing the unnecessary binding of gender information which makes more sense to keep in one place (with the profile of the person) rather than duplicating across every link (and thus violating the DRY principle). [[User:Tantek\|Tantek]] 12:37, 5 Feb 2008 (PST)		#** Per the [[process]] and the [[principles]] any references to mother and/or father were simplified (see microformat principle as simple as possible) to simply "parent", as well as removing the unnecessary binding of gender information which makes more sense to keep in one place (with the profile of the person) rather than duplicating across every link (and thus violating the DRY principle). [[User:Tantek\|Tantek]] 12:37, 5 Feb 2008 (PST)
			#** I'd like to second Tantek's argument. The object of the rel-value should maintain the current gender state (as a design principle, if the gender changes, the change should be reflected on the profile, not in the relationship; gender should have no bearing on the kin/parent relationship). [[User:Tantek\|Tantek]] 12:37, 5 Feb 2008 (PST)
	</div>		</div>
	</div>		</div>

TobyInk: /* 2008 */ html5 rel=contact dropped

2008-07-25T09:03:01Z

2008: html5 rel=contact dropped

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:03, 25 July 2008
Line 87:		Line 87:
	#* [[User:TobyInk\|TobyInk]]: Yes, the HTML 5 definition certainly seems more generically useful.		#* [[User:TobyInk\|TobyInk]]: Yes, the HTML 5 definition certainly seems more generically useful.
	# Ryan King: I've given this feedback to the HTML-WG already. Ian Hickson, one of the editors, has said he'll address it in HTML5.		# Ryan King: I've given this feedback to the HTML-WG already. Ian Hickson, one of the editors, has said he'll address it in HTML5.
			#* Recent drafts of HTML 5 have removed the conflicting meaning of <code>rel="contact"</code> ''for now''.
	</div>		</div>

TobyInk: /* 2008 */ linkify

2008-03-25T14:57:53Z

2008: linkify

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:57, 25 March 2008
Line 83:		Line 83:
	<div class="vevent" id="relcontactconflict">		<div class="vevent" id="relcontactconflict">
	* {{OpenIssue}} <span class="summary vcard"><span class="dtstart">2008-02-18</span> raised by <span class="fn">[[User:TobyInk\|TobyInk]]</span></span>		* {{OpenIssue}} <span class="summary vcard"><span class="dtstart">2008-02-18</span> raised by <span class="fn">[[User:TobyInk\|TobyInk]]</span></span>
	*# <span class="description">The XFN meaning of rel="contact" conflicts with the HTML5 definition: "Gives a link to contact information for the current document."</span>		*# <span class="description">The XFN meaning of [[rel-contact\|rel="contact"]] conflicts with the HTML5 definition: "Gives a link to contact information for the current document."</span>
	# Andy Mabbett: Anecdotally; I see lots of pages with links marked "contact xxx", where "xxx" is "us", "me" or the name of the organisation owning the page concerned (Google finds about 3,590,000,000 for "contact us").		# Andy Mabbett: Anecdotally; I see lots of pages with links marked "contact xxx", where "xxx" is "us", "me" or the name of the organisation owning the page concerned (Google finds about 3,590,000,000 for "contact us").
	#* [[User:TobyInk\|TobyInk]]: Yes, the HTML 5 definition certainly seems more generically useful.		#* [[User:TobyInk\|TobyInk]]: Yes, the HTML 5 definition certainly seems more generically useful.

TobyInk: Issue raised on mailing list earlier. Thought it should be documented on Wiki for posterity.

2008-03-21T08:35:01Z

Issue raised on mailing list earlier. Thought it should be documented on Wiki for posterity.

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:35, 21 March 2008
Line 79:		Line 79:
	* {{OpenIssue}} 2008-02-01 raised by [[User:Tantek\|Tantek]]		* {{OpenIssue}} 2008-02-01 raised by [[User:Tantek\|Tantek]]
	*# rel-me injection. If a site allows 3rd parties to enter markup into their pages, it may be possible for a 3rd party to enter a hyperlink, perhaps even a hyperlink with a rel attribute, which would enable errant rel-me links. No such known example exists, but the issue has been raised as a possibility, since such sites (or web site software) might exist. If any example is found, please add them to [[rel-me-injection-sites]].		*# rel-me injection. If a site allows 3rd parties to enter markup into their pages, it may be possible for a 3rd party to enter a hyperlink, perhaps even a hyperlink with a rel attribute, which would enable errant rel-me links. No such known example exists, but the issue has been raised as a possibility, since such sites (or web site software) might exist. If any example is found, please add them to [[rel-me-injection-sites]].
			</div>

			<div class="vevent" id="relcontactconflict">
			* {{OpenIssue}} <span class="summary vcard"><span class="dtstart">2008-02-18</span> raised by <span class="fn">[[User:TobyInk\|TobyInk]]</span></span>
			*# <span class="description">The XFN meaning of rel="contact" conflicts with the HTML5 definition: "Gives a link to contact information for the current document."</span>
			# Andy Mabbett: Anecdotally; I see lots of pages with links marked "contact xxx", where "xxx" is "us", "me" or the name of the organisation owning the page concerned (Google finds about 3,590,000,000 for "contact us").
			#* [[User:TobyInk\|TobyInk]]: Yes, the HTML 5 definition certainly seems more generically useful.
			# Ryan King: I've given this feedback to the HTML-WG already. Ian Hickson, one of the editors, has said he'll address it in HTML5.
	</div>		</div>

TobyInk: /* 2008 */ rel=parent/child/sibling conflict.

2008-03-21T08:24:56Z

2008: rel=parent/child/sibling conflict.

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:24, 21 March 2008
Line 72:		Line 72:
	#** REJECTED DUPLICATE. The proposal for "mother" and "father" has been made many times and rejected. Repeating it is simply wasting time/space. Please stop reproposing it. [[User:Tantek\|Tantek]] 12:37, 5 Feb 2008 (PST)		#** REJECTED DUPLICATE. The proposal for "mother" and "father" has been made many times and rejected. Repeating it is simply wasting time/space. Please stop reproposing it. [[User:Tantek\|Tantek]] 12:37, 5 Feb 2008 (PST)
	#*** <span style="text-transform:uppercase;">Reopened</span>. Rejected by whom? When? On what grounds? This is not a duplicate, since the proposal is made in response to the newly-identified problem of the overloading of "parent". [[User:AndyMabbett\|Andy Mabbett]] 14:30, 5 Feb 2008 (PST)		#*** <span style="text-transform:uppercase;">Reopened</span>. Rejected by whom? When? On what grounds? This is not a duplicate, since the proposal is made in response to the newly-identified problem of the overloading of "parent". [[User:AndyMabbett\|Andy Mabbett]] 14:30, 5 Feb 2008 (PST)
			# Probably because drafts of HTML 4.0 included rel="parent", rel="child", and rel="sibling" to indicate relationships between documents. These were dropped from the final version, but do seem to be used here and there. These original meanings are supported by the [http://www.mozdev.org/source/browse/cdn/xul/linktoolbar/content/linktoolbar/linkToolbarHandler.js?rev=1.49;content-type=text%2Fx-cvsweb-markup LinkToolbar for Firefox].
	</div>		</div>
	</div>		</div>

Tantek: remove REJECTION THEORETICAL and REOPENING per URL provided, collapse into existing issue follow-up, edit.

2008-02-05T22:36:58Z

remove REJECTION THEORETICAL and REOPENING per URL provided, collapse into existing issue follow-up, edit.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:36, 5 February 2008
Line 49:		Line 49:
	*# XFN has no <code>rel="guardian"</code> property, for children who have no (biological or legal) parent. (See: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22parent+or+guardian%22)		*# XFN has no <code>rel="guardian"</code> property, for children who have no (biological or legal) parent. (See: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22parent+or+guardian%22)
	# ACCEPTED FAQ. The XFN meaning of parent includes guardian per http://gmpg.org/xfn/background#family . This should be better documented in an FAQ.		# ACCEPTED FAQ. The XFN meaning of parent includes guardian per http://gmpg.org/xfn/background#family . This should be better documented in an FAQ.
	#* XFN may intend that definition, but that is not the commonly-used definition; and such muddying will be offensive to some people~~. [[User:AndyMabbett\|Andy Mabbett]] 11:40, 2 Feb 2008 (PST)~~		#* XFN may intend that definition, but that is not the commonly-used definition; and such muddying will be offensive to some people - note [http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/guardian the distinction] and the [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22parent+or+guardian%22 evidence of the many websites making such a distinction]. [[User:AndyMabbett\|Andy Mabbett]] 11:40, 2 Feb 2008 (PST)
	#** REJECTED THEORETICAL.
	#*** <span style="text-~~transform:uppercase;">Reopened</span>. Despite Tantek's unsigned opinion, neither~~ [http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/guardian the distinction]~~, nor the offence caused by ignoring it, are theoretical. Note~~ the [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22parent+or+guardian%22 evidence of the many websites making such a distinction]. [[User:AndyMabbett\|Andy Mabbett]] 14:25, 5 Feb 2008 (PST)
	</div>		</div>
	</div>		</div>