On 1/11/06 8:30 AM, "Mark Pilgrim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/11/06, David Osolkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Nitpickery: you forgot the rel="tag" in your rel-tags. > > Doh. > >>> From the rel-tag microformats page: >> >> The linked page SHOULD exist, and it is the linked page, rather than >> the link text, that defines the tag. The last path component of the >> URL is the text of the tag, so >> >> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/tech"; rel="tag">fish</a> >> >> would indicate the tag "tech" rather than "fish". > > OK, that answers my question. The last path segment of the @href is > the tag's "term"; the part of the @href before the last path segment > is the tag's "scheme"; the child text is the tag's "label". Yes. > Nit: the rel-tag specification should probably say "last path segment > of the URL" instead of "last component of the URL", to match the > terminology of RFC 3986, section 3.3: "A path consists of a sequence > of path segments separated by a slash ("/") character." This would > also make it clear that tags can't be given in query parameters or > fragment identifiers. (I don't have a problem with this restriction, > but the language tripped me up until I dug far enough into the > relevant RFCs.) > > I'd be happy to make this change on the wiki if there are no objections. Since I believe I wrote the phrase "last component" in the spec, by all means, please change it to match the terminology of RFC3986, and go ahead and add RFC3986 as a normative reference as well. Thanks, Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
