W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2005

Re: Suggestion: 'rel="unrelated"'

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:39:47 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <200501221339.j0MDdlw02266@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: www-html@w3.org

> [2] http://lachy.id.au/blogs/log/2004/08/link-relationships

I had a look at this, and I think it is making some of the same mistakes
as Google.

- It is limiting the markup to links when it is the whole third party 
  contribution that is questionable;

- It is using what is intended to be a relationship name to act as a
  personal rating;

- It fails to distinguish between the cases of a resource that is 
  useless and one that is a good example of how not to do things 
  (the latter being, in my view, a legitimate link type relationship).

Also, it seems to me that it is re-inventing rating systems.  Although
PICS is only really used for censorship ratings, attached to the actual
resources, it is actually more general, and allow third party rating 
using any combination of rating dimensions, not just the typical cinema
and video game dimensions.

I also remember a lot of talk about a more general system - I think it
might be RDF, but I'd have to search, which again had third party rating
as a goal.  It seems that a lot of this paper is a poor man's version of
such systems.

These rating systems are about rating resources, whereas the problem as
seen by Google is one of rating links, and the more general problem is 
that of rating third party contribution embedded in a composite, single
page, document.
Received on Saturday, 22 January 2005 13:52:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:20:55 UTC