Tantek Çelik wrote:
Copying it though violates the DRY principle and unnecessarily
introduces a
risk of introducing errors/changes from the spec.
Are we really applying the DRY principle to documentation? Nobody
uses rel-bookmark because nobody knows about it because nobody reads
W3C specs in their entirety. I think the benefits of explaining the
elements of meaningful XHTML [1] clearly outweigh the risks of
straying from the spec. If we don't understand a section of the spec
well enough to explain it to others, how can we expect to build
microformats on top of XHTML?
We should not duplicate things from other specs, we should
reference them.
False dichotomy. We can both reference them and further explain them
within the contexts of microformats.
Thus perhaps we need a required reading section where we at least
list:
Specifications:
- HTML 4.01: http://w3.org/tr/html401
- XHTML 1.0: http://w3.org/tr/xhtml1
Those two specs are hundreds of pages long. That's a hefty
prerequisite to impose on someone who just wants to make their weblog
markup a bit more semantic.
Alternatively, one might say that the use of rel="bookmark" for blog
permalinks is worthy of documenting as an explicit example, since
the HTML
4.01 spec makes no reference to blogs or permalinks.
I would lean this way, but I don't think this conversation is worth
having until a rel-bookmark wiki page actually exists. Right now
we're discussing whether or not a hypothetical explanation of rel-
bookmark is better than the W3C explanation.
Peace,
Scott
[1] http://tantek.com/presentations/2005/03/elementsofxhtml/
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
