On 12/12/06, Angus McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, December 12, 2006 5:05 pm, Andy Mabbett wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Schinkel > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >>OTOH, I could use any of the following if attached to "professional": >>Respect, admire, impressed by,awed, revere, worship, idolize, iconize. >>If would be nice if there was a way to extend professional respect and >>admiration. > > Not to mention: mentor, mentee, trainer, trainee,I wonder if idolizing someone is in some way analogous to a VoteLinks vote-for. If we start encoding not only hierarchical relations but expressions of approval/disapproval, you have the possibility to write some extremely career-limiting XFN expressions. <a href="..." rel="colleague boss despise"> ... </a> and <a href="..." rel="colleague subordinate sweetheart"> ... </a> are two that might not do you any good in the workplace ... Angus
I agree. It's an amusing situation, but possibly a bit personal! Adding additional attribute values seems a bit like splitting hairs to me. What exists at the moment is a generalised, but for the most part adequate list of types that describe in a loose terms (so as not to be restrictive) just about any relationship a person is likely to have. There are probably merits to adding a couple more, but I'm not sure adding every single explicit type of relationship has any extra value. Infact, adding too many additional terms starts to water down the effect and would no doubt make creating useful maps of information from these relationships difficult. F -- Frances Berriman http://fberriman.com _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
