On Jan 31, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Ben Ward wrote:
My understanding therefore, is that @rel=me indicates that it is the
same person. @rel=self indicates that it is the same hcard.
Therefore the absolute authoritative hcard we speak of may (I expect
will) contain other links with @rel=me but will not contain a link
with @rel=self.
This is what I understood.
From here on, is a braindump:
I'm still unsure of the original objection, which seems to be that
@rel=me must be symmetric. XFN does not have the concept of one of
those pages being more authoritative than the other, right? If we have
the following page structure (bare minimum markup included for brevity):
Document A:
<a href="B" rel="me"></a>
Document B:
<a href="A" rel="me"></a>
to XFN, both pages are equally "authoritative," in that they represent
the same author. XFN doesn't seem to care much about which one is
"more authoritative" than the other, just that they are referring to
the same person, and that's fine.
Adding @rel=self is a proposed way of breaking this loop, and letting
one settle as the authority:
Document A:
<a href="A" rel="me self"></a>
Docment B:
<a href="A" rel="me"></a>
I think that would be the use case (judging by what Chris Messina
posted)?
The problem there seems that A no longer tells us anything about
wether or not it recognizes B as another, valid source of information.
Simply adding another URL with @rel=me doesn't seem like it would work
though -- then the following case could occur:
Document A:
<a href="A" rel="me self"></a>
<a href="B" rel="me"></a>
Document B:
<a href="B" rel="me self"></a>
<a href="A" rel="me"></a>
In which both A and B claim authority, and both link to each other as
"slaves", which leaves a parser in a strange situation -- now you
don't just have two pages claiming to represent one person, but two
pages claiming to be the authoritative source for one person. This
doesn't seem like it would make a whole lot of sense.
end braindump.
Is this (one of) the issues being discussed? I'm basing a lot of this
on Chris Messina's email to the thread, which was a bit unclear.
If so, I wrote a second part to this (attempting to solve that
problem), but decided to save it until I know wether or not I even
have my assumptions in order.
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
