Re: [whatwg] Regarding "Examples for rel=tag"
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: >> Also, as I pointed out in the original post, consumers already use >> rel=tag intending for it to apply only to portions of a page. > > Consumers or producers? What matters here is not changing _consumer_ > behaviour, so that we don't break pages written with the assumption that > they work as they do now. Ah, yeah, misunderstood "consumer" as a synonym for "author". Your reasoning does makes more sense to me now. But, I would still say that if existing consumer behavior is to apply tags to the entire document, then that is simply a limitation of producers not being able to explicitly say that certain tags only apply to portions of the page... which is actually an open issue on the Microformats Wiki for rel-tag[1], something that the HTML spec could potentially solve, and which seems well-suited to solve. How badly would this actually break existing parsers? Could it really be worse than multiple es? Or
Re: [whatwg] Regarding "Examples for rel=tag"
Didn't mean to go off-list with this. Posting the prior exchange before I respond: On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Hugh Guiney wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: >> Because it was invented before , so consumers apply it to the >> whole document and don't know about . In other words, backwards >> compatibility. > > But if a consumer uses , doesn't that take them out of the > backwards-compat category? > > Also, as I pointed out in the original post, consumers already use > rel=tag intending for it to apply only to portions of a page. On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Hugh Guiney wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: >> > Because it was invented before , so consumers apply it to the >> > whole document and don't know about . In other words, >> > backwards compatibility. >> >> But if a consumer uses , doesn't that take them out of the >> backwards-compat category? > > How so? I mean, Google will work the same (for example) regardless of > whether Googlebot supports or not. > > >> Also, as I pointed out in the original post, consumers already use >> rel=tag intending for it to apply only to portions of a page. > > Consumers or producers? What matters here is not changing _consumer_ > behaviour, so that we don't break pages written with the assumption that > they work as they do now.
Re: [whatwg] Regarding "Examples for rel=tag"
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Hugh Guiney wrote: > > Just saw the following change: http://html5.org/r/7347, and while it's > certainly nice to have examples, I don't understand why rel="tag" > *always* applies to the whole document. Because it was invented before , so consumers apply it to the whole document and don't know about . In other words, backwards compatibility. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
[whatwg] Regarding "Examples for rel=tag"
Just saw the following change: http://html5.org/r/7347, and while it's certainly nice to have examples, I don't understand why rel="tag" *always* applies to the whole document. I think it makes perfect sense in the first example, but my expectation as an author would be for tags within articles to apply only to them, just as header, footer, address, etc. do. Take for example a listing of blog posts which display their respective tags: My Summer Vacation Content Tags: vacation, swimming My New Cat Content Tags: cats, responsibility As currently written, the spec would have implementations tag the entire document with "vacation", "swimming", "cats", and "responsibility". Such tags might go together if the author were talking about how it's irresponsible to take cats swimming with you on vacation, but that's not the case here. The only way around this I take it would be for a CMS not to include "rel=tag" on the links in the listing page view, but then to include them in the single post or "permalink" views... which strikes me as odd, as both such views typically display more or less the same content, just in different contexts. The semantic of the links being tags doesn't change at all. In fact, WordPress already uses rel="tag" in the above manner by default[1], and the Microformats Wiki, which I believed popularized the syntax, states that "a tag may just refer to a major portion of the current page (i.e. a blog post)"[2], so this conflicts with existing usage. [1]: http://twentyelevendemo.wordpress.com/ [2]: http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-tag#Abstract
