On Sep 5, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Ben Ward wrote:
Syntactically the URI would still work, however, semantically it
would have
been broken, that is, it is bad to not only change URIs so that
they 404 and
just plain don't work, but it is also bad to change the *meaning*
of that
URI.
As long as there is a clear link to the specification from the
explanation, then I disagree that it's really changed the meaning
of the link target.
Whilst the ‘meaning’ in terms of microformats.org/wiki/hcard being
a page about hCard would still be valid, the context in which that
URL is used by publishers on the internet. Tutorials may link to
the entire page accompanied by the text ‘read the hCard
specification’, whilst other pieces could be linking to fragment
identifiers within the page to reference a specific part of the spec.
I think if we all take a step back we'll find this tangent is rather
pointless. Two proposals have been made: 1) change the current root
pages to be intros and create new -spec pages or 2) leave the specs
where they are and create new -intro pages. I've seen a few people
object to #1 and no one object to #2. So why not just do #2? Does
anyone actually think creating -intro pages is a bad idea? It seems
like we're just debating #1 for the sake of debating.
Peace,
Scott
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
