Tantek Çelik wrote to the Microformats Discuss mailing list on
2006-04-24 in “Re: "uid" microformats? (was Re: [uf-discuss] ISBN
mark-up)” (<mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-April/003839.html>):
hCard normatively references vCard for semantics, which says:
3.6.7 UID Type Definition
Type purpose: To specify a value that represents a globally unique
identifier corresponding to the individual or resource associated
with the vCard.
I wrote to Microformats Discuss about the “UID” type’s definition and
the implications in “[uf-discuss] "uid" microformats?” (2006-04-24,
<mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-April/003847.html>).
Third, I actually see disadvantages in using URIs as a basic unit rather
than URLs.
All URLs are URIs. What have I missed?
Thus as a pattern we should use URLs in microformats, not URIs.
If you mean that we should use URIs with authoritative
location/retrieval semantics, I agree. If you mean that we should use
URIs whose location/retrieval semantics include broad network
accessibility, I agree. Goodbye, “file” scheme! Goodbye, “tag” scheme!
OTOH, an opaque UID which asserts nothing but "globally unique identifier"
(see above) is both quite simple, and much more "backwards compatible" with
use of UID in vCard/iCalendar applications today.
How are people publishing “UID” properties in vCards today?
--
Etan Wexler.
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
