Non-HTTP tags

The rel-tag specification says that tags ought to be HTTP
URIs.

In a page I'm authoring at the moment, I'm using non-HTTP
URIs as tags
- specifically I'm using irc: URIs (like
irc://irc.freenode.net/microformats) as tags.

Operator seems fine with it. I'm wondering whether other tag
parsers
accept non-HTTP tags, and whether there is some kind of
philosophical
justification for the current HTTP only policy for tags. It
seems to
me that so long as the target resource URI conforms to the
tag URI
structure, it shouldn't matter what protocol it uses.

Also, any thoughts on a rel-tag test suite? Specifications
say,
implementations show, tests prove, remember. 

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

On 07/01/2008, Tom Morris <bbtommorrisgmail.com> wrote:
> The rel-tag specification says that tags ought to be
HTTP URIs.
>
> In a page I'm authoring at the moment, I'm using
non-HTTP URIs as tags

--- this is interesting. I canīt speak for the original
intent of only
HTTP, but one reason might be transparency. Anyone who wants
to know
what the tag "Turkey" might mean, can dereference
the URL and get a
page that further explains that term. This is why both the
tag and
tag-space are important.

If we are using non-HTTP links, then some of that
transparency is
lost. irc://irc.freenode.net/microformats could be
deferenece
(debatable if the user is not familiar or donīt have an IRC
client)
then once you are there, there wouldnīt be much in the way
of
human-readable text to further explain what
"microformats" means.
Again, debatable because the channel would be full of people
who could
explain what that term means.

> ... there is some kind of philosophical
> justification for the current HTTP only policy for
tags. It seems to
> me that so long as the target resource URI conforms to
the tag URI
> structure, it shouldn't matter what protocol it uses.

--- i would say that it would need to dereference to
something that
explains the term more, not all protocols would do this.

> Also, any thoughts on a rel-tag test suite?
Specifications say,
> implementations show, tests prove, remember. 

--- there is a basic test suite at hg.microformats.org, but
the only
rel-tag tests are in conjunction with compound microformats.
A rel-tag
test suite would be welcomed.

-brian

-- 
brian suda
http://suda.co.uk

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

On Mon, January 7, 2008 10:03, Tom Morris wrote:
> The rel-tag specification says that tags ought to be
HTTP URIs.

> In a page I'm authoring at the moment, I'm using
non-HTTP URIs as tags
> - specifically I'm using irc: URIs (like
> irc://irc.freenode.net/microformats) as tags.

> Operator seems fine with it.

Operator finds no tag in:

   <a href="tel:+441213039944"
rel="tag">0121 303 9944</a>

> It seems to me that so long as the target resource URI
conforms to
> the tag URI structure, it shouldn't matter what
protocol it uses.

Likewise; though in the above example we might need to
define that the tag
is:

   tel:+441215555555

or:

   +441215555555

as there is no slash to act as a delimiter.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
** via webmail **

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