HellOnline

Icon

Eran's blog

citeRel comments

While I was away in the desert, Peter Janes dropped by and left a couple of comments:

All of the examples you provide have the pattern CITE A … /A /CITE; since you’re really talking about link types and A takes the REL attribute, why not just use it instead of adding the extra element?

We based the format on suggestions made by Tantek Celik in “The Elements of Meaningful XHTMLâ€? and in discussions following that talk. You can read more about that on Ryan’s early posts about the microformat.

CITE A stands for citing the linked source well enough so that a new Rel value for A tags is not necessary. This leads to using the CITE A compound as the basic format for citing a reference. To further enhance this format with specific types of citations we added the various Rel classes in citeRel.

According to Joe Clark […snip…] CITE is basically for titles and terms, although the HTML 4.01 spec seems to have relaxed/redefined that somewhat.

I believe CITE can be used to indicate the source of a quote as you can see in Tantek’s presentation mentioned above and in the XHTML 2.0 draft.

redundant “relâ€? prefix.

I agree that it is somewhat redundant and as I noted before I do plan to remove it once CITE tags have Rel attributes. Right now, though, I think it lends some explicit meaning to the class names. See another reason for using this prefix in my reply to your next comment.

as link types, the relationships should probably be suitable for both REL and REV.

Yes, I believe you are correct. In fact, the examples I cited should probably have used Rev instead of Rel. Based on the suggestions you made, we should now have two classes for replies, updates and forwards for example:

  • relReplyTo – the cited document is a reply to this one.
  • revReplyTo – this document is a reply to the cited one.
Advertisements

Filed under: MicroFormats

%d bloggers like this: