OBJECT include pattern and excess HTTP requests

Hey hey,

Quick question for people publishing hReview.

Long ago when the OBJECT-include pattern was first raised,
there was  
a bug in Safari that made it unworkable. That bug got
fixed.

However, there appears to be a separate, very serious
browser issue  
whereby browsers are making additional HTTP requests for
each OBJECT  
include in a page, even though the data attribute is making
a same- 
page fragment reference (#review-item or whatever).

I've swapped for the hyperlink include pattern (however,
repeating  
the review item name as the InnerText of the anchor, so as
not to  
create poorly accessible empty anchors).

What I want to know is if anyone else knows of a robust
solution to  
prevent browsers firing off these extra requests from the
presences  
of OBJECT?

My feeling is that the Wiki content on the include pattern
needs a  
tidy anyway, but if this issue with firing unwanted requests
is  
unfixable, I think we should restructure to promote the
hyperlink- 
include as the first-choice solution.

I should emphasise that whilst it may be a non-issue or
trivial for  
small-scale publishing, firing off these extra requests is a
deal- 
breaker performance problem on the scale of sites we have at
Yahoo.

Ben


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

> I've swapped for the hyperlink include pattern
(however, repeating
> the review item name as the InnerText of the anchor, so
as not to
> create poorly accessible empty anchors).

+1

> My feeling is that the Wiki content on the include
pattern needs a
> tidy anyway, but if this issue with firing unwanted
requests is
> unfixable, I think we should restructure to promote the
hyperlink-
> include as the first-choice solution.

+1

Duncan Cragg

PS It's then just a small step to allow off-page includes,
which is
related to the interlinked hCards on different sites that I
was
talking about recently on this list.  If anyone can come up
with more
real-world use-cases for this type of cross-site uF linkage,
I'd be
most grateful.  Looking further ahead (wrong list for that,
I know)
I'd see good mashup opportunities from allowing more uF
interlinkage...    =0)
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

> My feeling is that the Wiki content on the include
pattern needs a
> tidy anyway, but if this issue with firing unwanted
requests is
> unfixable, I think we should restructure to promote the
hyperlink-
> include as the first-choice solution.

I would agree with that... even here such extra unecessary
requests could be 
a problem at the server end. (as the load is constantly
pretty high)

> PS It's then just a small step to allow off-page
includes, which is
> related to the interlinked hCards on different sites
that I was
> talking about recently on this list.  If anyone can
come up with more
> real-world use-cases for this type of cross-site uF
linkage, I'd be
> most grateful.  Looking further ahead (wrong list for
that, I know)
> I'd see good mashup opportunities from allowing more
uF
> interlinkage...    =0)

interesting ... but the extra complexity that would add to
parsers 
(requiring them to do the extra requests) would be a
problem.. also what 
about pages being looked at offline?

I think too much stuff would break! 


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

In the interests of tidy administration, I'm splitting this
thread.  
The originally raised and the proposal for including remote
content  
within microformats are very different issues and it's
important that  
the original thread stay on track.

Thanks.

On 10 Oct 2007, at 02:59, Michael MD wrote:
>> PS It's then just a small step to allow off-page
includes, which is
>> related to the interlinked hCards on different
sites that I was
>> talking about recently on this list.  If anyone can
come up with more
>> real-world use-cases for this type of cross-site uF
linkage, I'd be
>> most grateful.  Looking further ahead (wrong list
for that, I know)
>> I'd see good mashup opportunities from allowing
more uF
>> interlinkage...    =0)
>
> interesting ... but the extra complexity that would add
to parsers  
> (requiring them to do the extra requests) would be a
problem.. also  
> what about pages being looked at offline?
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

> > PS It's then just a small step to allow off-page
includes, which is
> > related to the interlinked hCards on different
sites that I was
> > talking about recently on this list.  If anyone
can come up with more
> > real-world use-cases for this type of cross-site
uF linkage, I'd be
> > most grateful.  Looking further ahead (wrong list
for that, I know)
> > I'd see good mashup opportunities from allowing
more uF
> > interlinkage...    =0)
>
> interesting ... but the extra complexity that would add
to parsers
> (requiring them to do the extra requests) would be a
problem.. also what
> about pages being looked at offline?
>

I said this was the wrong list!   =0)

Imagine you replaced 'parser' with 'browser' in the
above...

There could be a case for a parallel stream of work in
Microformats.
Where, currently, uFs are (very successfully and quite
justifiably)
pave-the-cowpath of inside-HTML usage, there may be people
who would
like to reuse these standards in other contexts.  That is,
outside of
a current web page.

For example, in REST integration (see my 'REST Dialogues'
where I go
on about this a lot); or for 'hyperdata' ; bottom-up,
small-s semantic
Web (see my 'Micro Web' where I go on about this a lot).

Don't flame. I know I'm out of line here.  :-/  Extending
the reach
and scope of uFs while not breaking the process that gave
birth to
them is a tricky proposition.

Here at the FT we're thinking about using the uF standards
as the
basis of a kind of internal data model (hAtom for our news,
hCard for
our companies - nothing ground-breaking), but we need to
pull the
standards out from the inside of HTML pages and give them a
life of
their own, all linked up.  (I know if I mention JSON for
this I'll be
kicked off the list, so I won't do that.  =0)

The www.ft.com pages at the end of this insanity could have
those
wandering uFs back where they belong, snugly tucked up in
XHTML, with
just a POSH link or two between them, to which current
in-page-only
parsers may stay oblivious.

But..  if an hAtom parser could follow links from hfeeds to
hentries,
that would be excellent, especially when we may have many
hfeeds
pointing to the same hentries - our search results are just
lists
without content. Or if an hCard parser could follow links
from BT's
hCard to the hCards of their CEO, CTO, etc., I'm sure some
of our
readers would approve, especially if the links went back
again from a
CEO to their list of board duties. Or what if an hCalendar
parser
could go from an hCalendar event for the AGM of BT, via an
embedded
list of links labelled 'attendees', to the /same/ hCards of
the CEO
and other people known to be attending - even if those
hCards are
scattered across the Web.

There's no need to duplicate hCards or hentries.  That's
what links are good at.

In fact, let's even try to find cowpaths around /linked
data/.  (Not
Linked Data, the big-S version).

The Web's full of links, after all...

Cheers!

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

On 10/10/07, Ben Ward <listsben-ward.co.uk> wrote:
> .. tidy administration .. splitting this thread.
> ..  including remote content within microformats ..
> ..  different issues ..
> ..  important .. stay on track...
>

Oops. Sorry.  =0)

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

On Oct 9, 2007, at 4:37 AM, Duncan Cragg wrote:
> PS It's then just a small step to allow off-page
includes, which is
> related to the interlinked hCards on different sites
that I was
> talking about recently on this list.  If anyone can
come up with more
> real-world use-cases for this type of cross-site uF
linkage, I'd be
> most grateful.  Looking further ahead (wrong list for
that, I know)
> I'd see good mashup opportunities from allowing more
uF
> interlinkage...    =0)

I'm unconvinced that cross-page/site inclusion would be
useful for  
microformats. There are already several ways for
microformats to  
refer to related information at other places on the Web.

Why should microformats be interlinked from the perspective
of a  
microformat parser, but not from the perspective of a user
browsing  
to the page?

Doing so would constitute hidden metadata (it's off on
another page  
somewhere). The current methods work and align with user's
views of  
the world, because the information is already on the page,
and the  
relationship is well understood by the reader. In other
(fewer)  
words, the current include pattern is based on current
publishing  
behavior.

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

On 10/25/07, ryan <ryantheryanking.com> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2007, at 4:37 AM, Duncan Cragg wrote:
> > PS It's then just a small step to allow off-page
includes, which is
> > related to the interlinked hCards on different
sites that I was
> > talking about recently on this list.  If anyone
can come up with more
> > real-world use-cases for this type of cross-site
uF linkage, I'd be
> > most grateful.  Looking further ahead (wrong list
for that, I know)
> > I'd see good mashup opportunities from allowing
more uF
> > interlinkage...    =0)
>
> I'm unconvinced that cross-page/site inclusion would be
useful for
> microformats. ..

Hi Ryan! Thanks for replying.

Would it be possible for you to take on the points in the
subsequent
email from me, rather than this, earlier, 'PS'? Here's a
link:

http://microformats.org/discus
s/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-October/010833.html

This post elaborates quite a bit on the linked-uF concept.

All that follows on from the thread before where I raised
the point
about you (Ryan) having to maintain two hCards:

http://microformats.org/disc
uss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-September/010769.html


[ In the interests of full disclosure, I subsequently took
some
'off-charter' linked-uFs-in-JSON ideas over to the uf-dev
list:

http://microformats.org/discuss/ma
il/microformats-dev/2007-October/000375.html
 ]

Cheers! Much appreciated.    

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