Re: [uf-discuss] rel-edit
I wonder, though, if marking up the edit link has a real use case. What kind of tool would make use of it, and in what way? A little testimony: I'm programming a CMS that enables several links to edit content. One of these links is to a global edit this article page ; the other links are for in-context edition (edit this title). A click on such a local in-context edit link will call a little javascript, that will fetch an edit form via ajax, and on and on. Currently the markup we use for the first link is a a, we could add rel=edit. No problem here. For in-context edition, there is no a, it's just a class that's appended to to the element. Ex: h1 class=crayon article-titre-34Titre/h1 our js script is going to read the page, find the .crayon elements and add to them all that's necessary to make hem editable (event processing and so on). .article-titre-34 means it's the title from the entry 34 in the articles table. I think the latter example is typical of a tool that could use rel=edit stuff. But in this case, how could it be? -- Fil ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] rel-edit
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On May 25, 2007, at 8:08 PM, Evan Prodromou wrote: On Fri, 2007-25-05 at 19:16 -0700, John Panzer wrote: I'd like to start a draft rel-edit page on microformats.org; but first I'd like to gather some feedback on this mailing list. Just FYI: The Atom Publishing Protocol draft spec uses link rel=edit .../ to point from a read-only representation of a resource to an alternative URI that allows for editing operations, and in particular one which is supposed to support loss-less GET/edit locally/PUT semantics in the case of Atom resources. That's interesting, and I'm glad to hear about it. I think at least the first part (point from a read-only representation of a resource to an alternative URI that allows for editing operations) sounds compatible with the proposed rel-edit semantics. However, for most of the applications I was thinking of (wikis, CMSes, blog software, forums, comment systems), there's not a RESTful GET-edit-PUT flow. Instead, the editable representation is typically an HTML form, which is POSTed. Do you think that's a serious conflict -- an existing use of rel=edit that is widespread and has different semantics? Is there a danger of a real-world clash (e.g., an Atom processor that accidentally stumbles across a wiki page with a rel-edit link and does the wrong thing)? Do you think the conflict is important enough to choose a different rel attribute? I think it would be reasonable to assign slightly different semantics for link rel=edit and a rel=edit. It makes sense that the former (being invisible) would be aimed at purely programmatic use and the latter (since it is a visible link) would be for a page that gives editing UI. It doesn't make any sense to me. When browsers (e.g. Opera) or extensions (e.g. Firefox Link Widgets) properly expose linked resources, they are just as visible as anchors. That would work very nicely. Naming two entirely different things the same invariably produces confusion (e.g. some authors don't understand the rather different semantics of the cite attribute and the cite element). Making names have semantics dependent on context is even worse. Making a new link type work differently to other link types by having two sets of semantics is also a bad idea IMHO. I wonder, though, if marking up the edit link has a real use case. What kind of tool would make use of it, and in what way? Browsers could be configured to open webmail compose links in a new window. Compare your suggestion of this use-case to the WHATWG list: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-April/011098.html Now Atom's semantics may throw a cog in the wheel of rel=edit. But how about differentiating rel=edit from Atom's rel=edit by using rel=compose instead? Or, alternatively, we could try and get the Atom draft changed to use rel=put since edit is rather vague? -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
[uf-discuss] Re: RFC: sHTML Video Thumbnailing
Hello, Note... there is a detail I left out of this. One many browsers, the q element adds a specific style that really doesn't work a thumbnail. So I add the following to the q element... style=border:0;text-decoration:none; (I could probably get away with just the border:0... but I add the text-decoration:none just to be safe.) See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/ On 5/27/07, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, This is an RFC -- Request for Comments. So I'm looking for people's opinions, comments, and criticisms on all this. Note... this is NOT a Microformat. Nor an attempt to define a new Microformat. This is about semantic HTML (sHTML) markup. (Hopefully this isn't too off-topic for this mailing list. I'm just looking to tap this group for comments on this.) BACKGROUND I'm developing some software for a client that will (among other things) display video thumbnails within HTML. I've actually used this form of semantic HTML before. However, until this, none of it was publicly released. (Also, with this software, once it is out there, I won't be in control of the software... and thus not able to make corrections to the markup later.) SEMANTIC HTML The way I'm planning on marking these up is using a combination of 2 built in HTML elements. The q element and the img element. Conceptually, I'm considering a video thumbnail to be analogous to quoted text. In other words, I'm conceptually considering video thumbnails to be a quote of a video. So, for example, we would have something like... q cite=http://example.com/video;img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; //q Or if you want that pretty-printed... q cite=http://example.com/thevideo; img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; / /q CITING VIDEO In this, I make use of the q element's cite attribute to refer to the video where the thumbnail is taken from. This cite attribute might refer to a binary video file. But could also refer to a blog post or vlog post in which the video is embedded. For the purposes of this, I'm considering some (but not all) HTML pages to be video. So.. for example, an HTML vlog post is considered to be video. TYPES OF THUMBNAILS Really there are different sources a thumbnail can come from. A thumbnail can come from a video. But it could also come from a (static) image. So... to distinguish between these different types of thumbnails, I've added a class-video to the q element. (I suppose if you have a thumbnail from a static image you could add class-image... but anyways) So, our example from before becomes... q class=video cite=http://example.com/video;img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; //q Or if you want that pretty-printed... q class=video cite=http://example.com/thevideo; img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; / /q RFC Comments? Critisizms? Opinions? -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/ ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
[uf-discuss] Re: RFC: sHTML Video Thumbnailing
Hello, Sorry... I made an error in the last message. I was thinking the abbr element used for dates (for some reason). That's NOT the style I add for thumbnails. With the q element you need to get rid of the beginning and ending quotes some browsers add. I don't have the code in front of me at the moment, but I believe what I add is... style=quotes : none none; See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/ On 5/27/07, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Note... there is a detail I left out of this. One many browsers, the q element adds a specific style that really doesn't work a thumbnail. So I add the following to the q element... style=border:0;text-decoration:none; (I could probably get away with just the border:0... but I add the text-decoration:none just to be safe.) See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/ On 5/27/07, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, This is an RFC -- Request for Comments. So I'm looking for people's opinions, comments, and criticisms on all this. Note... this is NOT a Microformat. Nor an attempt to define a new Microformat. This is about semantic HTML (sHTML) markup. (Hopefully this isn't too off-topic for this mailing list. I'm just looking to tap this group for comments on this.) BACKGROUND I'm developing some software for a client that will (among other things) display video thumbnails within HTML. I've actually used this form of semantic HTML before. However, until this, none of it was publicly released. (Also, with this software, once it is out there, I won't be in control of the software... and thus not able to make corrections to the markup later.) SEMANTIC HTML The way I'm planning on marking these up is using a combination of 2 built in HTML elements. The q element and the img element. Conceptually, I'm considering a video thumbnail to be analogous to quoted text. In other words, I'm conceptually considering video thumbnails to be a quote of a video. So, for example, we would have something like... q cite=http://example.com/video;img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; //q Or if you want that pretty-printed... q cite=http://example.com/thevideo; img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; / /q CITING VIDEO In this, I make use of the q element's cite attribute to refer to the video where the thumbnail is taken from. This cite attribute might refer to a binary video file. But could also refer to a blog post or vlog post in which the video is embedded. For the purposes of this, I'm considering some (but not all) HTML pages to be video. So.. for example, an HTML vlog post is considered to be video. TYPES OF THUMBNAILS Really there are different sources a thumbnail can come from. A thumbnail can come from a video. But it could also come from a (static) image. So... to distinguish between these different types of thumbnails, I've added a class-video to the q element. (I suppose if you have a thumbnail from a static image you could add class-image... but anyways) So, our example from before becomes... q class=video cite=http://example.com/video;img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; //q Or if you want that pretty-printed... q class=video cite=http://example.com/thevideo; img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; / /q RFC Comments? Critisizms? Opinions? -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/ ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
[uf-discuss] RFC: sHTML Video Thumbnailing
Hello, This is an RFC -- Request for Comments. So I'm looking for people's opinions, comments, and criticisms on all this. Note... this is NOT a Microformat. Nor an attempt to define a new Microformat. This is about semantic HTML (sHTML) markup. (Hopefully this isn't too off-topic for this mailing list. I'm just looking to tap this group for comments on this.) BACKGROUND I'm developing some software for a client that will (among other things) display video thumbnails within HTML. I've actually used this form of semantic HTML before. However, until this, none of it was publicly released. (Also, with this software, once it is out there, I won't be in control of the software... and thus not able to make corrections to the markup later.) SEMANTIC HTML The way I'm planning on marking these up is using a combination of 2 built in HTML elements. The q element and the img element. Conceptually, I'm considering a video thumbnail to be analogous to quoted text. In other words, I'm conceptually considering video thumbnails to be a quote of a video. So, for example, we would have something like... q cite=http://example.com/video;img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; //q Or if you want that pretty-printed... q cite=http://example.com/thevideo; img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; / /q CITING VIDEO In this, I make use of the q element's cite attribute to refer to the video where the thumbnail is taken from. This cite attribute might refer to a binary video file. But could also refer to a blog post or vlog post in which the video is embedded. For the purposes of this, I'm considering some (but not all) HTML pages to be video. So.. for example, an HTML vlog post is considered to be video. TYPES OF THUMBNAILS Really there are different sources a thumbnail can come from. A thumbnail can come from a video. But it could also come from a (static) image. So... to distinguish between these different types of thumbnails, I've added a class-video to the q element. (I suppose if you have a thumbnail from a static image you could add class-image... but anyways) So, our example from before becomes... q class=video cite=http://example.com/video;img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; //q Or if you want that pretty-printed... q class=video cite=http://example.com/thevideo; img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; / /q RFC Comments? Critisizms? Opinions? -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/ ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Re: RFC: sHTML Video Thumbnailing
Intriguing. A few points: 1. About your CSS, neither border nor text-decoration remove the quotation punctuation added to q by browsers that attempt to follow the HTML specification for q. You'd want to use the quotes property: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/generate.html#quotes Since q is an inline element and blockquote is block, presumably sometimes you'd want to use blockquote instead. 2. Your examples should include proper alt text. 3. I'd suggest using class=videothumbnail instead of class=video, which could mean all sorts of things. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: Hello, Note... there is a detail I left out of this. One many browsers, the q element adds a specific style that really doesn't work a thumbnail. So I add the following to the q element... style=border:0;text-decoration:none; (I could probably get away with just the border:0... but I add the text-decoration:none just to be safe.) See ya ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] RFC: sHTML Video Thumbnailing
On May 27, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: TYPES OF THUMBNAILS Really there are different sources a thumbnail can come from. A thumbnail can come from a video. But it could also come from a (static) image. So... to distinguish between these different types of thumbnails, I've added a class-video to the q element. (I suppose if you have a thumbnail from a static image you could add class-image... but anyways) So, our example from before becomes... q class=video cite=http://example.com/video;img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; //q Or if you want that pretty-printed... q class=video cite=http://example.com/thevideo; img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; / /q RFC Comments? Critisizms? Opinions? I don't think this is a very natural use of the q element. A thumbnail isn't really like a quote of a prose fragment. Consider that you would never put a thumbnail in quotation marks. Also, q cite= does not generally result in a clickable hyperlink, and q adds rendered quotes in some browsers but not others. If you want the full video to be clickable, what you might want is: a rev=thumbnail href=http://example.com/video; img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; /a Or, since rev is confusing and semi-deprecated, you could use rel=full-video or something like that; there's no very good opposite to thumbnail unfortunately. Regards, Maciej ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] rel-edit
On May 27, 2007, at 5:09 AM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: It doesn't make any sense to me. When browsers (e.g. Opera) or extensions (e.g. Firefox Link Widgets) properly expose linked resources, they are just as visible as anchors. That would work very nicely. When browsers or extensions expose linked resources, they generally do so for a selected set of link types (for example, link rel=stylesheet is not exposed) and often do so with specialized UI (for instance, feed links, those being link rel=alternate with a syndication feed MIME type, or per HTML5 ones with rel=alternate feed are often displayed Some link relationships only make sense on one of a or link. That being said, I think it makes more sense to call a link to a page with editing UI rel=edit, than one with a PUT-able location for the document, I would call the latter rel=writeable. Since Atom Publishing Protocol is only a draft, I wouldn't assume it is unchangeable, and they seem to have take a notion of edit that is pretty specific to newsreader applications. Naming two entirely different things the same invariably produces confusion (e.g. some authors don't understand the rather different semantics of the cite attribute and the cite element). Making names have semantics dependent on context is even worse. Making a new link type work differently to other link types by having two sets of semantics is also a bad idea IMHO. I wonder, though, if marking up the edit link has a real use case. What kind of tool would make use of it, and in what way? Browsers could be configured to open webmail compose links in a new window. My understanding of the proposal is that rel=edit is intended for a link to edit the current document, as in a wiki. Thus, it would not be appropriate, as proposed, to put on a webmail compose link, or even a webmail reply link, since neither is an example of editing the current document. Additionally, I think it would be really bad for interoperability if some but not all browsers interpreted rel=edit to mean open in a new window. So this idea is unlikely to be implemented. Compare your suggestion of this use-case to the WHATWG list: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-April/ 011098.html Actually, that suggestion was about links *in* mail messages that you received, which being viewed in a webmail client. And in the context of link targeting. I don't think it is related to the rel=edit proposal. Now Atom's semantics may throw a cog in the wheel of rel=edit. But how about differentiating rel=edit from Atom's rel=edit by using rel=compose instead? Or, alternatively, we could try and get the Atom draft changed to use rel=put since edit is rather vague? Sounds to me like rel=compose would not be a good way to label the edit this page link on a wiki page. Getting back to the proposal, the canonical use for rel=edit proposed was for edit this page links on wikis and similar. To determine if it is useful, I think we need to identify what things web browsers, data mining tools, browser extensions or other user agents might do with the knowledge that some particular link is an edit this page or edit this section link. Regards, Maciej ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Re: RFC: sHTML Video Thumbnailing
Hello Benjamin, On 5/27/07, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Intriguing. A few points: 1. About your CSS, neither border nor text-decoration remove the quotation punctuation added to q by browsers that attempt to follow the HTML specification for q. You'd want to use the quotes property: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/generate.html#quotes Since q is an inline element and blockquote is block, presumably sometimes you'd want to use blockquote instead. You must have been typing this as I wrote my correction... http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-May/009703.html Originally, for some reason, I was thinking about the style I add to the abbr element when I use it for dates. 2. Your examples should include proper alt text. Good catch. (You are correct. It should have included it.) 3. I'd suggest using class=videothumbnail instead of class=video, which could mean all sorts of things. That's a good point about class-video. See ya -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: Hello, Note... there is a detail I left out of this. One many browsers, the q element adds a specific style that really doesn't work a thumbnail. So I add the following to the q element... style=border:0;text-decoration:none; (I could probably get away with just the border:0... but I add the text-decoration:none just to be safe.) See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/ ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] RFC: sHTML Video Thumbnailing
Hello Maciej, On 5/27/07, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 27, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: TYPES OF THUMBNAILS Really there are different sources a thumbnail can come from. A thumbnail can come from a video. But it could also come from a (static) image. So... to distinguish between these different types of thumbnails, I've added a class-video to the q element. (I suppose if you have a thumbnail from a static image you could add class-image... but anyways) So, our example from before becomes... q class=video cite=http://example.com/video;img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; //q Or if you want that pretty-printed... q class=video cite=http://example.com/thevideo; img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; / /q RFC Comments? Critisizms? Opinions? I don't think this is a very natural use of the q element. A thumbnail isn't really like a quote of a prose fragment. Consider that you would never put a thumbnail in quotation marks. True... but you don't have to have the q elements put quotes around the thumbnail. Please refer to the following to see how to get rid of it... http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-May/009703.html This is similar to the problem we have with using abbr for dates. Some browsers put a border under the abbr element. We get rid of the bottom border some browser put under the abbr element (when we use it for dates) with a little extra inline style. We can do something similar here for the q element used for video thumbnails. Also, q cite= does not generally result in a clickable hyperlink, It's not suppose to be clickable (in general). In this bit of sHTML, I'm only tackling the problem of video thumbnailing. It is true that I often do make it clickable by having code like the following... a href=http://example.com/thevideo; q class=video cite=http://example.com/thevideo; img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; alt=... / /q /a But this is NOT always the case. Sometimes I don't want the thumbnail to be clickable. and q adds rendered quotes in some browsers but not others. If you want the full video to be clickable, what you might want is: a rev=thumbnail href=http://example.com/video; img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; /a I'm not sure if the rev attribute is being used correctly in your markup. Or, since rev is confusing and semi-deprecated, you could use rel=full-video or something like that; there's no very good opposite to thumbnail unfortunately. Regards, Maciej See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/ ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] RFC: sHTML Video Thumbnailing
Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: a rev=thumbnail href=http://example.com/video; img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; /a I'm not sure if the rev attribute is being used correctly in your markup. Rev defines the reverse link to the current document, not to whatever is encapsulated by the link itself...unless I'm reading the spec wrong This attribute describes the relationship from the current document to the anchor specified by the href attribute http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#edef-A So, the above would mean the current document as a whole is the thumbnail for http://example.com/video; rather than the img is the thumbnail for So yes, it's a slight misuse (or a case of stretching the semantics, if you will) of rev, I'd say. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] RFC: sHTML Video Thumbnailing
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.1.2 My simplified understanding of the relationship between rel and rev is With the rel attribute, the relationship that the linked page has to this link is foo. With the rev attribute, the relationship that this link has from the linked page is foo. Use previous or next as the link values and you'll understand what's going on. From: Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: a rev=thumbnail href=http://example.com/video; img src=http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg; /a I'm not sure if the rev attribute is being used correctly in your markup. Rev defines the reverse link to the current document, not to whatever is encapsulated by the link itself...unless I'm reading the spec wrong This attribute describes the relationship from the current document to the anchor specified by the href attribute http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#edef-A A rel link from the video page to the thumbnail would be thumbnail. So, a rev link on the thumbnail to the video page would also be thumbnail. I've got no problem with using rel and rev values myself, but if you're going to use a a custom link-type that's not actually defined in http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links then you should use a profile to define what's going on. -- Paul Wilkins ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
