Scope of tags (Was: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw")

Wed Jan 3 14:08:02 PST 2007

In message
<21e770780701030231y26b16655if066d2bc156d9149 at mail.gmail.com>, Brian
Suda <brian.suda at gmail.com> writes
>> Suppose Sue publishes a family tree as a series of web pages, one for
>> each person.
>>>> On her own page, she has:
>>> http://example.com/sue.html
>> Title: Sue Smith
>>>> Jane Fred

>> |_____________.______________|
>> |
>> Sue
>>>> with an hCard for each person. If they tag Fred as "deceased", then
>> they, too, are shown as deceased. Not good.
>>--- i´m not sure how you came to that conclusion?

On:
 <http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-tag#Abstract>
 By adding rel="tag" to a hyperlink, a page indicates that the
 destination of that hyperlink is an author-designated "tag" (or
 keyword/subject) for the current page. Note that a tag may just
 refer to a major portion of the current page
> certainly
>aggregators would mark that the page is "about" the term "deceased"
>but it wouldn´t make an assumption about individual hCards? and
>depending on the mark-up if Sue is NOT nested inside Fred´s hCard,
>then there is a distinction between where/what/who the rel-tag is
>relating.

There is? Where, on the rel-tag spec, is that made clear?
>We are dabbling in theoretical territory,

Unlike some, I have no allergy to "theoretical territory". Indeed, it's
a pre-requisite to science.
>do you have a page that has
>been marked-up somewhere and that page is being misinterpreted by
>aggregators and parsers? if so please let us know so we can help
>diagnose the problem.

I am not planning on using rel-tag (especially not in hCard and
hCalendar) until this and some of the other issues with it have been
resolved. I suspect I'm not alone in that.
I also can't lay an egg, but I can tell when one has gone off ;-)
-- 
Andy Mabbett
 * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>
 * Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
 * Are you using Microformats, yet: <http://microformats.org/> ?