On 07/01/2008, Tom Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The rel-tag specification says that tags ought to be HTTP URIs. > > In a page I'm authoring at the moment, I'm using non-HTTP URIs as tags
--- this is interesting. I can´t speak for the original intent of only HTTP, but one reason might be transparency. Anyone who wants to know what the tag "Turkey" might mean, can dereference the URL and get a page that further explains that term. This is why both the tag and tag-space are important. If we are using non-HTTP links, then some of that transparency is lost. irc://irc.freenode.net/microformats could be deferenece (debatable if the user is not familiar or don´t have an IRC client) then once you are there, there wouldn´t be much in the way of human-readable text to further explain what "microformats" means. Again, debatable because the channel would be full of people who could explain what that term means. > ... there is some kind of philosophical > justification for the current HTTP only policy for tags. It seems to > me that so long as the target resource URI conforms to the tag URI > structure, it shouldn't matter what protocol it uses. --- i would say that it would need to dereference to something that explains the term more, not all protocols would do this. > Also, any thoughts on a rel-tag test suite? Specifications say, > implementations show, tests prove, remember. :) --- there is a basic test suite at hg.microformats.org, but the only rel-tag tests are in conjunction with compound microformats. A rel-tag test suite would be welcomed. -brian -- brian suda http://suda.co.uk _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
