#indiewebcamp 2013-02-08

2013-02-08 UTC
scor, morrocco_mole, mxuribe, sdboyer_, Loqi, lmorchard, reidab, elf-pavlik, tommorris, jancborchardt, Phae, slvrbckt, wajiii-afk, hadleybeeman, catsup, donpdonp, singpolyma, aaronpk, heath, brianloveswords, mkowens, dpk, ianloic, hober, gardnr, sbp, josephboyle, Nadreck, rektide, andreypopp, sdboyer, Stevef, eschnou, tantek, friedcell and barnabywalters joined the channel
#
Stevef tantek: any pointers to info about why allowing <cite> to be used as described here http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Cite_elementis bad? there does not appear to be much detail about negatives
andreypopp, adactio, mxuribe, eschnou, morrocco_mole and danbri joined the channel
#
tantek Stevef - if you're talking about http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Cite_element#Speaker in particular, then no, there aren't really any negatives (less precise spec?). So yes, a bunch of us continue to use <cite> in this way because it's not something that validators/browsers care about, so as authors, we can use it as flexibly as we want.
eschnou joined the channel
#
tantek more recently I've been exploring using <cite> to contain *even* more, that is, an entire structured citation, e.g. the markup to copy and paste to cite one of my blog posts at the bottom: http://tantek.com/2012/353/b1/why-html-classes-css-class-selectors
#
tantek using the in-development h-cite microformat: ufs.cc/w/h-cite
#
tantek !tell Stevef if you're talking about http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Cite_element#Speaker in particular, then no, there aren't really any negatives (less precise spec?). So yes, a bunch of us continue to use <cite> in this way because it's not something that validators/browsers care about, so as authors, we can use it as flexibly as we want.
#
Loqi Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next
#
tantek !tell Stevef more recently I've been exploring using <cite> to contain *even* more, that is, an entire structured citation, e.g. the markup to copy and paste to cite one of my blog posts at the bottom: http://tantek.com/2012/353/b1/why-html-classes-css-class-selectors - using the in-development h-cite microformat: http://microformats.org/wiki/h-cite
#
Loqi Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next
tantek joined the channel
#
tommorris tantek: so, you know about the microformats wikispam problem? when I find a wikispam problem I don't fuck around. http://wiki.linkedgov.org/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=500&user=Tom+Morris&hide_patrol_log=1&month=&year= :)
tantek joined the channel
#
tantek impressive tommorris. do you use a tool for that or just MediaWiki UI?
#
tommorris WATIR - Web Application Testing in Ruby
#
tommorris lets you script Firefox
#
tommorris less bother than the API
eschnou joined the channel
#
aaronpk tantek: did you submit an indieweb panel for sxsw this year?
#
tantek I'm not going to sxsw this year
#
aaronpk oh!
#
tantek I'm not a entrepreneur/VC/CEO/marketing/bizdev person.
#
aaronpk haha
#
aaronpk ok
#
tantek it's not what it used to be.
#
aaronpk it's true
#
tommorris wishes he could have gone to SXSW back when it was awesome.
mxuribe joined the channel
#
tantek tommorris - there are replacements sprouting up. XOXOfest in Portland was quite good last September.
#
aaronpk it's on again this year!
#
tantek it is?
#
tantek where's the kickstarter?
#
tantek (did you go to the xoxo meetup?)
eschnou, tantek and scor joined the channel
#
tantek what do you guys think of rel="discussion" for linking from a post to its comments (more general than rel=comments) ?
#
tantek I'm thinking beyond comments because it would be useful for W3C specs linking to where discussions about those specs happen.
#
tommorris tantek: yep, and also to pages where there is, say, a collation of feedback that isn't necessarily comments. like a compilation of retweets.
#
tantek yes, that's another good use case
#
tommorris I'm wondering also whether it'd work for threaded message boards.
#
tantek for those you could use rel=reply to link to permalinks to replies to a post
#
tantek we've talked about adding u-in-reply-to as a property for h-entry posts that link to what they're replying to
#
ianloic if I post a comment about a post of yours on my site should I rev=comments?
#
ianloic seems like there's value in defining both sides of this
#
aaronpk tantek: yep was there on wedneday! it was a secret launch party since he didn't want to announce the conference until that day
#
aaronpk http://2013.xoxofest.com/
tilgovi and morrocco_mole joined the channel
#
tantek ianloic - rev is dead.
#
tantek rel="in-reply-to" is a possibility
#
hadleybeeman tantek, I would be concerned that "discussion" isn't as intuitive a term as "comments" for what you're pointing to there. We already use "comments" in talking about them. "Rel=discussion" makes me think of "discussion forums", which are already a thing, and only a subset of what you're referencing.
danbri joined the channel
#
tantek hadleybeeman - right, they're all subsets of "discussion"
#
tantek they're all types of discussion
#
tantek rather than polluting the rel values with many different words that mean basically the same thing with minor variants (which sucks for non-native-english speakers), it's much better to pick one term which covers related uses like that.
#
hadleybeeman Yes, they are subsets of "discussion"... in our data-brains (that like to categorise and hierarchi...cherise? stuff). But not so much as a reference that will intuitively make sense for busy developer, I'd worry.
#
tantek you're assuming a English-native only bias
#
tantek the opposite is true (ease of use / understanding) worldwide
#
tantek nitpicking about / attempting to differentiate detailed meanings like that typically just gets you into a world of hurt (lots of time wasted in mostly theoretical discussions - see any semweb mailing list ;), and much harder to use for folks who speak other languages and have to wrestle with distinctions outside their native language)
#
tantek and for better discovery/understanding, we can always put in redirects on the wiki, that is, on microformats.org/wiki/rel-comments we can redirect that to microformats.org/wiki/rel-discussion
#
tantek and note also that the notion of subsets of meaning is not a data-brain thing, it's a linguistics thing. picking more generic terms is good deliberate language usability, especially for basic english speakers. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_English
#
tantek and now having found that URL, I wonder if we should bias new microformats terms to be from this list: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Basic_English_alphabetical_wordlist
#
tantek notes that "discussion" is in Basic English and "comment" is not.
#
hadleybeeman I see you're juggling a number of priorities there. From the point of view of "paving cowpaths", I think you'll have less traction with "discussion" because it doesn't fit how we already talk about the Web. But from a linguistic (and a pedantic — and you know I have my moments of pedantry!) point of view, I agree with you.
scor_ and zztr joined the channel
#
tantek psst: http://2013.xoxofest.com/