Re: [uf-discuss] Re: Need for plain-language intros for each microformat
On Fri, September 7, 2007 15:00, Eric A. Meyer wrote: or 2) leave the specs where they are and create new -intro pages. I've seen [...] no one object to #2. Then you haven't been paying full attention. For those of us who indeed haven't been paying full attention to this particular thread (guilty), a citation or three regarding objections to #2 would be greatly helpful. This entire thread is archived on-line, starting at: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-August/thread.html -- Andy Mabbett ** via webmail ** ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Re: Need for plain-language intros for each microformat
On 5 Sep 2007, at 20:18, Toby A Inkster wrote: Syntactically the URI would still work, however, semantically it would have been broken, that is, it is bad to not only change URIs so that they 404 and just plain don't work, but it is also bad to change the *meaning* of that URI. As long as there is a clear link to the specification from the explanation, then I disagree that it's really changed the meaning of the link target. Whilst the ‘meaning’ in terms of microformats.org/wiki/hcard being a page about hCard would still be valid, the context in which that URL is used by publishers on the internet. Tutorials may link to the entire page accompanied by the text ‘read the hCard specification’, whilst other pieces could be linking to fragment identifiers within the page to reference a specific part of the spec. As such, I also oppose that the specifications be moved from the current root locations. Potentially we could agree that future specifications include ‘-spec’ in the URL, but current URLs and content IDs need to remain the same. I would move that plain text ‘-info’ pieces be written for each spec and an introductory paragraph from each be placed at the top of each spec to more accessibly introduce the document, with a link to the ‘All about hCard’ page. Regards, Ben ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Re: Need for plain-language intros for each microformat
On Sep 5, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Ben Ward wrote: Syntactically the URI would still work, however, semantically it would have been broken, that is, it is bad to not only change URIs so that they 404 and just plain don't work, but it is also bad to change the *meaning* of that URI. As long as there is a clear link to the specification from the explanation, then I disagree that it's really changed the meaning of the link target. Whilst the ‘meaning’ in terms of microformats.org/wiki/hcard being a page about hCard would still be valid, the context in which that URL is used by publishers on the internet. Tutorials may link to the entire page accompanied by the text ‘read the hCard specification’, whilst other pieces could be linking to fragment identifiers within the page to reference a specific part of the spec. I think if we all take a step back we'll find this tangent is rather pointless. Two proposals have been made: 1) change the current root pages to be intros and create new -spec pages or 2) leave the specs where they are and create new -intro pages. I've seen a few people object to #1 and no one object to #2. So why not just do #2? Does anyone actually think creating -intro pages is a bad idea? It seems like we're just debating #1 for the sake of debating. Peace, Scott ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
