On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 22:48 +0000, Brian Suda wrote: > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Sarven Capadisli <i...@csarven.ca> wrote: > > I'm thinking that rel="contact" is generally attributed to someone that > > we have at least a "lowest form of friendship" with. [...] > > Additionally, > > if the user doesn't have control over the declaration of such > > relationship, wouldn't it be more meaningful and safer to exclude this > > bit of information in the output? > > --- You lost me on "exclude this", exclude what exactly?
My bad. My reference was to the example. > rel=contact > isn't symmetrical, so you might be my contact, but i'm not yours. I > can't control what you declare about me. That's exactly the case I was working with. > > The example I had in mind was 'Subscribers list' at > > http://identi.ca/csarven > > --- if you are subscribing to someone, then it probably at minimum > meets the definition of: someone that we have at least a "lowest form > of friendship" > > Are you suggesting it isn't and we should exclude it? No, I'll clarify. What I was trying to say was that, if I have a profile page where it lists a bunch of people that are subscribed to me, I wouldn't necessarily call them my contact since I don't really know them. Hence, in my example at http://identi.ca/csarven , rel=contact should be removed from Subscribers list. I agree that rev="contact" makes more sense here, but, I'm focused on the incorrect use of rel="contact". rel=contact is/should be reserved for people that meets the basic requirement of that "lowest form of friendship". In loose terms, it would be someone that I acknowledge or okay with. Do you agree with this general definition? I was looking for clarification on the "someone you know" bit. Thanks. -Sarven _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss