On Jan 23, 2007, at 8:46 PM, Joe Andrieu wrote:
Tantek Ç elik wrote
None of those examples given are actually "canonical"
sources, they're merely citations and quotations of sources
(for which we have existing HTML semantics for: <cite> <q
cite> <blockquote cite>. The semantic of canonicality is not
necessarily implied, only that the content came from
somewhere else, not that that somewhere else is the best /
most representative (i.e. canonical) instance of that content.
I think we don't mean "canonical" here, and perhaps fixing that will
clarify a use case that distinguishes the opportunity.
What I think is much more useful is /authoritative/ hCards. Meaning
that this is the author's truth for this reference. The authoritative
reference is the root source of the reference. It is close to
definitive, but definitive assumes objectivity, whereas authoritative
retains the subjectivity of the author.
I agree. Only one person knows the canonical source for a given
hCard (and even then it may change, e.g. in hCards used as OpenIDs).
Everyone else can at best point to the best authority they know.
Working through this leads me to think that an hCard that exists at
its
self-referenced URI should be considered "authoritative."
My concern about this is that many publishers (myself included) try
to avoid linking a page to itself due to usability concerns, e.g. "I
just clicked on that link and didn't go anywhere. This site is broken."
Peace,
Scott
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
