[microformats-discuss] xFolk 0.4

Sun Jul 10 20:37:56 PDT 2005

On Jul 10, 2005, at 7:29 PM, Bud Gibson wrote:
> Hi Eran:
>> First off, xFolk has now graduated to RC1 and is on the wiki here:
>> http://microformats.org/wiki/xfolk
>> Your points still holds for the latest version, and I'm open to 
> discussion on them. Let me provide a few reactions inline. I'll 
> put these on the issues list also.
>> On Jul 10, 2005, at 21:13, Eran wrote:
>>>>> From a semantic standpoint I find that "taggedLink" is 
>>> misleading, the
>> tags are not comments on the link, they are comments on the _linked
>> page_ (as represented by its URL). The subject, if you will, is the
>> resource _pointed at_ by the link. To represent this concept 
>> better we
>> should use a class name like "taggedResource" or even just "tagged".
>> This might look like nitpicking but we are, after all, discussing
>> semantics here.
>> Back in xFolk 0.3, the class was actually called xTagged which hits 
> at exactly what you are talking about. What might be the issue 
> with using just the word "tagged" or "xTagged"? At the time, there 
> was some discussion in email about just what was being tagged. At 
> the end of the day, in a distributed web tagging system like xFolk 
> or reltag, you need an address to point to because the data cannot 
> be assumed to be on your site. The way to do this for items on the 
> web is to point at a URL.
>> I suppose one could say taggedurl, but isn't that the same as 
> taggedlink?

I thin Eran is suggested a return to something like xtagged.
> Taggedresource seems less precise in light of this discussion as 
> does tagged. And I do think we need to be precise here because in 
> xFolk, we are talking about things with a web presence.
>> In emerging standards like the geo microformat or even hReview, 
> there is a notion that you may be talking about things that are not 
> on the web. The interesting point there, is that the web seems to 
> be frequently assumed as a way of resolving their location.
>>> As a follow-up, I'd like to bring up a question: would it be 
>> possible to
>> use class="tagged" on different types of elements? Say, an IMG, or 
>> even
>> just a SPAN? That would make it easier to tag rich-media objects in
>> their "natural form", improving the microformats readability for 
>> people
>> (when looking at a tagged image I expect to see an image not a 
>> link to
>> one).
>> I see no immediate reason not to take the <img> element into 
> account. This is a very good point. As for <span>, I see it 
> potentially having an identification issue as I discussed above. 
> As a side note, in a discussion of semantics, <span> seems to be 
> the least semantic of elements.

Span's could also be done as a link:
<span title="mypermalink" class ="tagged"> the thing you're taggin' </ 
span>
Of course, if you're doing author-tagging inline, you don't even 
really need xFolk, you could just use rel-tag.
-ryan
> I'd like to hear some other opinions on both of these if people 
> have any views. Eran, what's your reaction to the whole link 
> discussion?
>> Bud
>> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://mic