Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Martin McEvoy wrote:
From the "real world" found here:
http://nfegen.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/micrordformats/
<p>I read an interesting post recently, <a
href="http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-how-about-using-rdfa-in-microformats.html";
title="Link to Mark Birbeck blog post">‘So how about using RDFa in
Microformats?’</a>....</p>
An explicit one way relationship I might like to add to the hyperlink
above may be rev="reply"
<a rev="reply"
href="http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-how-about-using-rdfa-in-microformats.html";
title="Link to Mark Birbeck blog post">‘So how about using RDFa in
Microformats?’</a>
It seems the "real world" example you point to doesn't actually use
such a relationship, so I don't see how it qualifies as being real
world example in this case.
In any case, if there was a real use case for such a relationship,
then it rel="reply-to" would seem to be more appropriate. It's
meaning would then be roughly analogous to that of the In-Reply-To
email header field.
That was a good example of how Murky @rel is compared to @rev
<a rel="in-reply-to"
href="http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-how-about-using-rdfa-in-microformats.html";
title="Link to Mark Birbeck blog post">‘So how about using RDFa in
Microformats?’</a>
would be
<http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-how-about-using-rdfa-in-microformats.html>
is in reply to the referencing document surely?
(Although, I'm not convinced that there is a use case that really
needs solving here, and speculating about the use of hypothetical
relationships doesn't really provide any compelling evidence in
support of the rev attribute.)
Thanks
--
Martin McEvoy
http://weborganics.co.uk/
