From Microformats Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Problématiques XMDP

Ce sont des problématiques soulevées à propos de XMDP avec différents degrés de mérite. De ce fait, quelques problématiques sont REJETEES pour un certain nombre de raisons évidentes (mais encore documentées ici au cas où elles sont soulevées à nouveau), et d'autres qui contiennent de plus longues discussions. Quelques problématiques peuvent être ACCEPTEES et peut-être provoquer des changements ou des explications améliorées dans la spec. Les problématiques proposées peuvent (et le seront probablement) être éditées et récrites pour une meilleure concision, clarté, calmitude, rationnalité et si possible dans un point de vue neutre. Ecrivez bien vos problématiques. — Tantek

Voir les documents apparentés xmdp-faq et xmdp-brainstorming.


  • 2005-07-?? soulevée par Bud.
    1. Just because a profile value mentioned in a microformat's linked XMDP also appears in the document does not mean that that microformat is in use. Such co-occurrences could be purely by chance.
      • REJETE. No this does not make sense. By definition, an XMDP profile defines certain properties and values. Any use of such property or value in the document is thus defined by the definition in the XMDP.
  • 2005-07-13T20:01-07:00 soulevée par Bud.
    1. Relance de la problématique au-dessus : Actually, this is far from clear. Reading this excerpt from the XMDP description: "This specification does not define a set of legal meta data properties. The meaning of a property and the set of legal values for that property should be defined in a reference lexicon called a profile. For example, a profile designed to help search engines index documents might define properties such as "author", "copyright", "keywords", etc." seems not to imply exclusivity for the whole document, only for the part covered by the profile. If we assumed the quoted words implied exclusivity for the whole document, then only defined attribute values could be used for the whole document. The current usage suggests that we mean the profile to only cover the part of the document covered by the microformat. As such, we cannot use occurrence of a value to connote presence of the microformat. Consider this example, xFolk and hCalendar both use a description class attribute value. Presence of that value is therefore indeterminate as to which format is being used, even if we accepted your claim here, which seems dubious.
      • REJETE A NOUVEAU. Bud, that quote you give is XMDP quoting HTML4, please re-read the XMDP spec more carefullly. This is a non-issue.
  • 2005-07-?? soulevée par Bud(?).
    1. Currently, the XMDP can only be linked from the profile attribute of the head element. In many instances, authors will not have access to the head element.
      • ACCEPTEE. There are two additional proposed ways to link to XMDP profiles which are being discussed/explored in xmdp-brainstorming :
        1. <link rel="profile">, as introduced in the XMDP poster submitted to WWW2005.
        2. <a rel="profile" href>, as similarly discussed.
    2. Consider the supporting use cases: Providing explicit profile definitions for microformats embedded in RSS and Atom and other feeds / envelope formats that don't necessarily have a <head> element with a 'profile' attribute or something similar. I.e. : A very practical motivation for this question is the process of embedding xFolk in an RSS 2.0 feed and the ability to indicate the microformat is in use and where information about it can be found.
      • ACCEPTEE. These are good use cases and will be cited in any development/improvement to XMDP.
  • 2005-07-?? soulevée par Bud(?).
    1. Documents with user-generated content are hard to parse, and microformats present particular parsing challenges.
      • REJETEE. This is a straw man issue.
  • 2005-07-13T19:44-07:00 soulevée par Bud
    1. Relance vers problématique précédente : Tantek needs to supply some justification for why this is a strawman as every developer I have talked to has raised it. It may be that the solutions described below are sufficient to solve the issue. More neutral statements to that effect might be more constructive.
      • REJETE. Bud, saying "particular parsing challenges", without stating them is meaningless. Hence strawman. I think you may be mistaking questions for issues.

Sentez-vous libre d'ajouter vos problématiques ici. Gardez les problématiques dans cette liste sous forme de résumé. Sauvegardez les discussions plus longues et solutions potentielles pour élaboration plus bas.


Utilisez svp ce format (copiez et coller cela au-dessus pour ajouter votre problématique.) :

  • AAAA-MM-JJ soulevée par VOTRE NOM.
    1. Problématique 1 : Voici la première problématique que j'ai.
    2. Problématique 2 : Voici la seconde problématique que j'ai.