Martin McEvoy wrote:
Robert O'Rourke wrote:
Hi Martin, hope you're well :)
Hello Rob, nice to hear from you, yes I am well.... :-)
Glad to hear it!
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 ...
@rev => how "this" relates to "that"
@rel => how "that" relates to "this"
I can see it's usefulness. The way I see it the spec is not set in stone
yet, and you could still use @rev (if you don't mind the odd HTML5
validation error), it's just up to the particular xfn/microformats
parsers to actually do something with it, but I don't know much about
the current parsers.
Maybe you could ask forum or commenting services like disqus.com if
they're interested in putting @rev="reply" attributes on the comments
where they link back to the source or to another comment. That'd
generate a good real-world example. It could also be used on the
permalinks for blog comments - in wordpress the links go to the
url+fragment identifier of the comment. It could be a nice way to index
and timeline online 'conversations' through blog posts and comments,
especially if they're across disparate websites.
Anyway I'm rambling way off topic now, sorry.
Cheers,
Rob
