On 12/12/06, Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> Not to mention: mentor, mentee, trainer, trainee,
I would suspect that mentor, trainer would suffice, with then @rev="mentor" and @rev="trainer" providing the reciprocal relationships.
This would also help in that parsers could 'trust' @rev relationships less than @rel (which I believe has been mooted in the vote-for discussions), because the statement 'this person is my mentor' is pretty irrefutable but saying 'this person is my mentee' probably needs a bit of extra vertification.
I can think of a few people I'd like to link to with @rev="object-of-lust", otherwise ;-)
> I've stayed away from using <address> on some of my pages precisely > because of this, so I'd be delighted to find I'd read it wrong!
> -Ciaran McNulty
<address> is an element designed to contain contact information. So if you want to include contact information use <address>. That is indepenent of using hCard or not. <address> is a html element, specified by the w3c, hCard is an attribute vocabulary, designed by microformats. You can pretty well use both together. In fact, microformats is designed in that way: To be used together with html.
On 12/13/06, Siegfried Gipp <siegfr...@rorkvell.de> wrote:
> <address> is an element designed to contain contact information. So if you > want to include contact information use <address>. That is indepenent of > using hCard or not. <address> is a html element, specified by the w3c, hCard > is an attribute vocabulary, designed by microformats. You can pretty well use > both together. In fact, microformats is designed in that way: To be used > together with html.
Discussion subject changed to "professional relations (was: XFN usage stats and Re: [uf-discuss] rel="muse" implies romantic relationship?)" by Ben Ward
> Not to mention: mentor, mentee, trainer, trainee,
With a lot of these (I've personally been pondering ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ of late) the reverse is not required as a unique term, but can instead be put in the rev="" attribute of the link.
Discussion subject changed to "Microformats *do* seek to change behaviour (was: XFN usage stats and Re: [uf-discuss] rel="muse" implies romantic relationship?)" by Tim White
I'm not the greatest at reading those specs, so if someone else can confirm that, I'd appreciate it.
~ Tim tjameswhite.com
___________________________________________________________________________ _________ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
Aha, that sounds probable (apologies to Siegfried).
The fact it can't contain block level elements still makes it unusable for my needs though (I can't fit my hCard into entirely inline elements, so my pages don't validate correctly if I add <address>).
> so my pages don't validate correctly if I add <address>
Actually, it's more severe than just not validating. Nesting block level elements within ADDRESS triggers error-handling in browsers, such that the DOM does not reflect your mark-up. Mark-up such as:
> ADDRESS --> DIV ----> UL ----> P
Will make a DOM of:
> ADDRESS > DIV --> UL --> P
Where DIV is a sibling of ADDRESS, not a child.
This affects parsing, styling and anything you like, another reason ADDRESS is not required by any microformat.
>The fact it can't contain block level elements still makes it unusable >for my needs though (I can't fit my hCard into entirely inline >elements, so my pages don't validate correctly if I add <address>).
>-Ciaran
But you can still use hCard -- just wrap it in something else (<div id="hcard"></div>). <address> is allowed, not mandated.
And thank you Ben for the DOM clarification. I wasn't aware of that behavior.
~ Tim
___________________________________________________________________________ _________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
Am Mittwoch, 13. Dezember 2006 12:53 schrieb Ciaran McNulty:
> On 12/13/06, Tim White <tjameswh...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I believe that the (%inline) refers to what <address> can contain -- > > inline elements. See same structure for headings: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#h-7.5.5
> Aha, that sounds probable (apologies to Siegfried).
> The fact it can't contain block level elements still makes it unusable > for my needs though (I can't fit my hCard into entirely inline > elements, so my pages don't validate correctly if I add <address>).
Discussion subject changed to "professional relations (was: XFN usage stats and Re: [uf-discuss] rel="muse" implies romantic relationship?)" by Andy Mabbett
> I thought "rev" was in the process of being deprecated?
I do hope not; I'm quite a fan of the little blighter. Do you have a URL for that? _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-disc...@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Search the list -- Tantek has made related statements.
I too like the idea of the rev attribute, but it's potentially a crap shoot as there's so little behavior for it to be semi-worthless.
The idea of XBN is one we've explored previously as well (x-business-network). Again, try searching.
Lastly, as Tantek pointed out, we should consider how these links would help exchange data between two or more parties.
As LinkedIn and XING now support microformats, there a strong case for figuring out how to export your professional relationships, using terms that they both support (hint: start your research there!). While 'colleague' and 'co-worker' are a good start, they don't capture 'former-employer', 'client', 'consultant' or much else.
The goal is not to describe all relationship variations, but common ones that are shared between professional networking/resume sites.
Chris
On 12/13/06, Ben Ward <li...@ben-ward.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2006, at 18:29, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > I thought "rev" was in the process of being deprecated?
> I do hope not; I'm quite a fan of the little blighter. Do you have a > URL for that? > _______________________________________________ > microformats-discuss mailing list > microformats-disc...@microformats.org > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Discussion subject changed to "XFN: Proposing rel='respect' (was RE: professional relations and XFN usage stats and Re: [uf-discuss]rel="muse" implies romantic relationship?)" by Mike Schinkel
I always find it interesting how on a mailing list someone can make a simple comment with a pretty small scope and then have the community run with it, misinterpretting the original comment or suggestion, expanding its scope, and then debating and often even criticizing the assuming original intent! I've had this happen twice regarding comments I've made in so many days.
So please let me clarify that when I said:
>OTOH, I could use any of the following if attached to "professional": >Respect, admire, impressed by,awed, revere, worship, idolize, iconize. >If would be nice if there was a way to extend professional respect and >admiration.
I was simply saying that I felt there was a strong need for ONE additional value to be used in the "professional" relationship category. When I blog I frequently refer to people to whom I would like to include some form of professional respect and admiration, but none of the words I thought of were quite right. This has the effect of my just having no motivation to use XFN. So in order to start the discussion about which ONE term to add, I listed all the ones of similar meaning I could think of in hopes to have people say "I think 'xxxx' would be best."
And at the risk of rehashing, I'll try to state clearly why I don't think the current list is sufficient. While the people who defined XFN 1.1 intended "muse" to be used for what I find missing, I am completely uncomfortable denoting someone as my "muse" unless a.) they are of the opposite sex, b.) she is a celebrity of sorts, c.) and I don't know her personally. As the web is mostly a social phenomenon I would contend that although the use of muse makes perfect dictionary sense, the common use "muse", especially when paired with "romantic" has implications I personally would not want anyone to infer if I linked to Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, or Linus Torvalds. Call me uptight, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.
That said, I would like to propose that we add to XFN "respect" in the professional category, or some other similar term which the community decides is more appropriate, and increment the version to 1.2.
Discussion subject changed to "Professional relationships (Was: professional relations (was: XFN usage stats and Re: [uf-discuss]rel="muse" implies romantic relationship?))" by Andy Mabbett
In message <1bc4603e0612131143y180e478dm37b2ecf0cf1b6...@mail.gmail.com>, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com> writes
>While >'colleague' and 'co-worker' are a good start, they don't capture >'former-employer', 'client', 'consultant' or much else.
>The goal is not to describe all relationship variations, but common >ones that are shared between professional networking/resume sites.
Perhaps the aim should be to allow for all relationship variations, albeit at a low level of granularity|? For instance, "worked-with" (using past tense) or some such would cover all three of your examples, until something more specific might come along.
Discussion subject changed to "professional relations (was: XFN usage stats and Re: [uf-discuss]rel="muse" implies romantic relationship?)" by Mike Schinkel
As an aside, at the risk of starting a firestorm, it would be nice if there were a way to let the user decide his one relationship, i.e. maybe
<a rel="custom:xxxx" href="...">John Smith</a>
Where "xxxx" is of course the person's one identifier. Basically this would allow people to create a folksonomy. It could even require one of the other predefined tags to ensure that aggregators can still get a rough idea.
Discussion subject changed to "XFN: Proposing rel='respect' (was RE: professional relations and XFN usage stats and Re: [uf-discuss]rel="muse" implies romantic relationship?)" by Andy Mabbett
In message <023d01c71efc$2292daf0$0702a...@Guides.local>, Mike Schinkel <mikeschin...@gmail.com> writes
>I would like to propose that we add to XFN "respect" in the >professional category, or some other similar term which the community >decides is more appropriate, and increment the version to 1.2.
I'm curious in the absence of "rev", what would be the reverse relationship of "respect"?
Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes: > In message <023d01c71efc$2292daf0$0702a...@Guides.local>, Mike Schinkel > <mikeschin...@gmail.com> writes
>>I would like to propose that we add to XFN "respect" in the >>professional category, or some other similar term which the community >>decides is more appropriate, and increment the version to 1.2.
> I'm curious in the absence of "rev", what would be the reverse > relationship of "respect"?
Discussion subject changed to "XFN: Proposing rel='respect' (was RE: professional relations and XFN usage stats and Re: [uf-discuss]rel="muse" implies romantic relationship?)" by Rob O'Rourke
Andy Mabbett wrote: > In message <023d01c71efc$2292daf0$0702a...@Guides.local>, Mike Schinkel > <mikeschin...@gmail.com> writes
>> I would like to propose that we add to XFN "respect" in the >> professional category, or some other similar term which the community >> decides is more appropriate, and increment the version to 1.2.
> I'm curious in the absence of "rev", what would be the reverse > relationship of "respect"?
"Rob O'Rourke" <r...@sanchothefat.com> writes: > Andy Mabbett wrote: >> In message <023d01c71efc$2292daf0$0702a...@Guides.local>, Mike Schinkel >> <mikeschin...@gmail.com> writes
>>> I would like to propose that we add to XFN "respect" in the >>> professional category, or some other similar term which the community >>> decides is more appropriate, and increment the version to 1.2.
>> I'm curious in the absence of "rev", what would be the reverse >> relationship of "respect"?
> rel="diss"
No, no. The reverse relationship would be pointing from someone who was the object of respect to someone who performed the act of respecting.
Discussion subject changed to "XFN: Proposing rel='respect' (was RE: professional relations and XFN usage stats and Re: [uf-discuss]rel="muse" implies romantic relationship?)" by Andy Mabbett
Aren't claims that you are respected by ___ kind of arrogant? Is a reverse useful? It's one thing for someone to claim they respect another, and another thing entirely to claim to be respected.
On 12/13/06, Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
Discussion subject changed to "professional relations (was: XFN usage stats and Re: [uf-discuss] rel="muse" implies romantic relationship?)" by Ryan King
> On 13 Dec 2006, at 18:29, Andy Mabbett wrote: >> I thought "rev" was in the process of being deprecated?
> I do hope not; I'm quite a fan of the little blighter. Do you have > a URL for that?
Currently it's not in HTML5. To be conservative, I don't think we should build on any features that won't be in HTML5 (not that we can't change the course of the WHAT-WG).
Discussion subject changed to "XFN: Proposing rel='respect' (was RE: professional relations and XFN usage stats and Re: [uf-discuss]rel="muse" implies romantic relationship?)" by Rob O'Rourke
Am Mittwoch, 13. Dezember 2006 22:22 schrieb Mike Schinkel:
> As an aside, at the risk of starting a firestorm, it would be nice if there > were a way to let the user decide his one relationship, i.e. maybe
> <a rel="custom:xxxx" href="...">John Smith</a>
> Where "xxxx" is of course the person's one identifier. Basically this > would allow people to create a folksonomy. It could even require one of > the other predefined tags to ensure that aggregators can still get a rough > idea.
You don't need the "custom:" prefix. Anyone can define his/her own relationships. BTW, there are more relationships than between persons. Think of rel="prev", rel="next", rel="contents", ... So if you need your own relations for whatever, simply use them. It's just it is no microformat.
