Martin McEvoy wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Martin McEvoy wrote:
From the "real world" found here:
http://nfegen.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/micrordformats/
<a rev="reply"
href="http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-how-about-using-rdfa-in-microformats.html";
title="Link to Mark Birbeck blog post">‘So how about using RDFa in
Microformats?’</a>
In any case, if there was a real use case for such a relationship,
then it rel="reply-to" would seem to be more appropriate. It's
meaning would then be roughly analogous to that of the In-Reply-To
email header field.
That was a good example of how Murky @rel is compared to @rev
<a rel="in-reply-to"
href="http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-how-about-using-rdfa-in-microformats.html";
title="Link to Mark Birbeck blog post">‘So how about using RDFa in
Microformats?’</a>
would be
<http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-how-about-using-rdfa-in-microformats.html>
is in reply to the referencing document surely?
Thanks
Hi Martin, hope you're well :)
I don't chirp up that often on this list but I have to agree that @rev
isn't much of a loss. Perhaps for the above example rel="source" or
rel="muse" would be semantically valid as a reply could be said to be
inspired by the thing it's replying to... maybe that's a bad example.
To follow mailing list standards there are replies to the Original
Poster or OP so maybe you could use rel="op". Replies via blog posts are
pretty much the same as an email reply, just in a different context.
Maybe it's not ideal but @rev can be really confusing sometimes as
demonstrated by the evidence.
Rob
