Re: Re: Need for plain-language intros for each microformat

On 5 Sep 2007, at 20:18, Toby A Inkster wrote:
>> Syntactically the URI would still work, however,
semantically it  
>> would have
>> been broken, that is, it is bad to not only change
URIs so that  
>> they 404 and
>> just plain don't work, but it is also bad to change
the *meaning*  
>> of that
>> URI.
>
> As long as there is a clear link to the specification
from the
> explanation, then I disagree that it's really changed
the meaning
> of the link target.

Whilst the ‘meaning’ in terms of microformats.org/wiki/hcard
being a  
page about hCard would still be valid, the context in which
that URL  
is used by publishers on the internet. Tutorials may link to
the  
entire page accompanied by the text ‘read the hCard
specification’,  
whilst other pieces could be linking to fragment identifiers
within  
the page to reference a specific part of the spec.

As such, I also oppose that the specifications be moved from
the  
current root locations. Potentially we could agree that
future  
specifications include ‘-spec’ in the URL, but current URLs
and  
content IDs need to remain the same.

I would move that plain text ‘-info’ pieces be written for
each spec  
and an introductory paragraph from each be placed at the top
of each  
spec to more accessibly introduce the document, with a link
to the  
‘All about hCard’ page.

Regards,

Ben
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

In message <2387D9FD-3006-42FB-9BE6-3A76C6A0D0AEben-ward.co.uk>, Ben 
Ward <listsben-ward.co.uk> writes

>Whilst the ‘meaning’ in terms of
microformats.org/wiki/hcard being 
>a page about hCard would still be valid, the context in
which that URL 
>is used by publishers on the internet. Tutorials may
link to the entire 
>page accompanied by the text ‘read the hCard
specification’, whilst 
>other pieces could be linking to fragment identifiers
within the page 
>to reference a specific part of the spec.

Can you back that up  with evidence, or is it just
hypothetical 
speculation?

-- 
Andy Mabbett

_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On Sep 5, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Ben Ward wrote:

>>> Syntactically the URI would still work,
however, semantically it  
>>> would have
>>> been broken, that is, it is bad to not only
change URIs so that  
>>> they 404 and
>>> just plain don't work, but it is also bad to
change the *meaning*  
>>> of that
>>> URI.
>>
>> As long as there is a clear link to the
specification from the
>> explanation, then I disagree that it's really
changed the meaning
>> of the link target.
>
> Whilst the ‘meaning’ in terms of
microformats.org/wiki/hcard being  
> a page about hCard would still be valid, the context in
which that  
> URL is used by publishers on the internet. Tutorials
may link to  
> the entire page accompanied by the text ‘read the hCard
 
> specification’, whilst other pieces could be linking to
fragment  
> identifiers within the page to reference a specific
part of the spec.

I think if we all take a step back we'll find this tangent
is rather  
pointless.  Two proposals have been made: 1) change the
current root  
pages to be intros and create new -spec pages or 2) leave
the specs  
where they are and create new -intro pages.  I've seen a few
people  
object to #1 and no one object to #2.  So why not just do
#2?  Does  
anyone actually think creating -intro pages is a bad idea? 
It seems  
like we're just debating #1 for the sake of debating.

Peace,
Scott


_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss