On Apr 26, 2006, at 11:44 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
A large portion of what is published on the web references things
that don't exist on the web, and thus don't have a canonical URL.
Right, and to resolve whether it is a "large portion" or not, we
ask that
such things are documented in examples pages, and the citation-
examples are
a good example (so to speak) of this.
Ok, here are a hundred thousand references to "a cup of coffee":
http://technorati.com/search/%22a%20cup%20of%20coffee%22
None of these cups have canonical URLs that allow me to uniquely
reference the cup of coffee on the web.
Having
a canonical URL on the web suitable for a UID is a bad constraint for
a microformat.
This I am not sure about. It certainly seems like a *good thing*
to provide
incentive for more UIDs to become canonical URLs on the web.
But I would agree that this shouldn't be a constraint/requirement
per se,
but rather should be a bias (i.e. SHOULD) so that we provide
incentive or at
least preference in the direction of more canonical URLs.
And everyone else seems to be arguing that this shouldn't be a MUST.
MUST is a constraint. SHOULD is a *good thing*. Where is the
disagreement here? Let's not waste our time explaining why we
disagree before making sure we really do.
Right. I think saying "80% of people do X" without pointing to the
real world publishing examples that back up such a statement makes it
look like voices on this mailing list are determining the 80 vs. 20.
Right. Hopefully we only do so in "obvious" cases (e.g. things on
the Web
have URLs :)
That's what I thought, but I apparently illustrated my own point with
my "large portion" comment.
Peace,
Scott
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
