Robert O'Rourke wrote:
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 :)
Hello Rob, nice to hear from you, yes I am 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.
No Not that bad rel=muse is near the mark, but the author of the page I
am referencing may not give me inspiration, I just want to reply to
someone, it may be rhetorical, or insulting?
XFN rel values like "muse" are about how you think they would relate to
you, not about how you would relate to them eg:
<a href="http://sanchothefat.com/"; rel="muse">Robert O'Rourke</a>
I would be saying that <http://sanchothefat.com/> would describe itself
a muse of the referencing document?
by abandoning @rev you are denying the author the ability to express
inverse relationships, the ability to say that I have some explicit
relationship to a thing
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.
@rev => how "this" relates to "that"
@rel => how "that" relates to "this"
Rob
Thanks
--
Martin McEvoy
http://weborganics.co.uk/
