Ryan King wrote:
But the relationship isn't 'vcard'. 'vcard' describes the format (or
part of the format) of the referenced resource, not the relationship
between the two.
OK, fair enough: vcard is just a word, and in particular
[top-level-uf-id] is just a word. But because we're devising these names
to be unique under almost all circumstances, I don't think it's confusing.
Would your objection disappear it to be 'is-canonical-vcard'?
We've already made the leap that "current document" means the uFed
object in question on the source side, cf. rel-tag.
Right, we've stretched @rel to apply to parts of documents, rather than
whole documents. However, this isn't the problem I have with using
'vcard' as a rel value. The problem is that the typical @rel
interpetation doesn't make sense. To illustrate:
In document A I have:
<a rel="tag" href="B">blah</a>
this can be inpreted as "B is a tag for A".
In this case:
<a rel="vcard" href="B">blah</a>
"B is a vcard for A" doesn't make sense. B *is* a vcard, even if A
doesn't exist.
OK, there's something that didn't translate here: rel=vcard (and rel=uF)
in general can only be used within/at a class=vcard.
I.e. either you have A=
<span class="vcard">
<a rel="vcard" href="B">blah</a>
</span>
... that is, your statement: "B is a vcard for A"
OR
<a class="vcard" rel="vcard" href="B"><span class="fn">blah</a></a>
... that is, "B is vcard for blah"
Regards, etc...
David
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
