On 2/8/07, David Janes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/8/07, Scott Reynen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So as I understand that, the rules for getting the most authoritative
> hCard for a given URL are:
>
> 1) parse hCard at current URL
> 2) If the hCard includes <a class="uid url">, load the URL in the
> href, and return to step 1.
>
> When the consumer gets to http://theryanking.com/blog/contact/#vcard
> and finds no <a class="uid url">, it stops there and that's his
> authoritative hCard.
OK (and I'm not trying to turn into Andy here), but doesn't this feel
at least a little unsatisfactory? That the authoritative hCard is the
one that _doesn't_ have a UID, i.e. potentially has less information
than a fragment hCard?!
I'm not killer against the idea or anything, but at least I think that
should be brought up.
Here's one potential usage snag:
- I copy the hCard at http://theryanking.com/blog/contact/#vcard to my
"address book"
- I use it somewhere (to refer to Ryan King)
- It doesn't have a UID, so there's no tracing it back to source
And to do the dreaded "answering own e-mail", here's an alternate:
- fragment hCards do not need to have "uid", just "url"
- consumers (if they're interested) can dereference that URL
- if there is a UID hCard at the URL, dereference it
- the dereferenced hCard is the authoritative one
(I'm totally skipping the multiple hCard/hCard-matching issue for brevity)
Regards, etc...
--
David Janes
Founder, BlogMatrix
http://www.blogmatrix.com
http://blogmatrix.blogmatrix.com
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
