#dev 2024-10-12
2024-10-12 UTC
# 
trwnh yeah gRegor i would likewise assume that only the top-level .u-in-reply-to would affect the display of the post... i'm just trying to get the semantics right as a producer, and i'll let consumers figure out whatever they wanna do with it
# trwnh honestly the main thing i seem to be drawing from this is that the concept of "post types" or "post kinds" doesn't actually make a ton of sense, especially for producers
# trwnh happy halloween x_x
pixelglade joined the channel
# trwnh ok oddball question: does it make sense to nest an h-entry inside u-in-reply-to? i'm mostly wondering this because i want to markup a minimal representation of the thing i'm replying to, and i was thinking i could do that with p-name and u-url and nothing else.
# 
[0x3b0b] I'm going to have to investigate this Tantek business this weekend. I used to follow Tantek from my website, I'm positive...now I can look up his posts and his profile, his profile says I'm at "follow request sent..." but if I try to undo the follow request so I can try again, it throws an internal server error that ends with telling me "actor was deleted." I suspect I have wound up with a weird cached state.
# trwnh hm. so would that make it an h-cite embedded in u-in-reply-to? or should i just drop the idea and not mark up the p-name of the thing i'm replying to at all? > [tantek] Not really because h-entry has an implication of a complete thing, an entry, as opposed to a reference to a thing, for which we prefer to use h-cite
# trwnh the reason i am thinking about this at all is because i am currently representing my replies/responses by both name and url. and then i use this information to render something like <span>in response to <a href=
{{.url}}>{{or .name "[link]"}}</a></span># [0x3b0b] For what it's worth, my site has u-in-reply-to and h-cite on the same element. Here's a permalink to one of my notes that's in the middle of a conversation thread, if you want to check the source. I might not have it "right," but I have it "a way." I'm finally heading to bed though, so I am only open to discussing it...some other time.
# trwnh starting to have second thoughts so i should probably step back and try to describe what i'm trying to do here semantically. if i quote something, is that always appropriate for an h-cite? because what i'm really trying to do here is mark up my blockquotes and related metadata within a single container. this is why i'm unsure and generally asking somewhat leading questions regarding the use of h-cite, h-card, u-in-reply-to, u-quotation-of. i'm
# trwnh not sure where the overlaps are, nor where there might be gaps.
# trwnh that is to say: if the purpose of the quote is to respond to it, then am i responding to the quote, or to the full resource? because on a top-level, my h-entry is in response to some url representing the full resource... but does that make each quote a "citation"?
Pixi and Maxpm joined the channel
# 
capjamesg[d] This is a neat CSS rule: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/mix-blend-mode
# capjamesg[d] [edit] This is a neat CSS rule: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/mix-blend-mode
# 
[KevinMarks] The delete then recreate case is worth documenting as a possible AP spec issue, as if implementations treat delete as irrevocable that sounds like an attack vector. I can't work out all the implications, but it may be a way to disrupt account migration too
box464 and [qubyte] joined the channel
# [snarfed] here, some of those recommendations are I don't think for reply contexts, https://indieweb.org/quotation#How_to_markup for quote posts
# [snarfed] replying to a specific part of another post is uncommon, but there's some prior art in https://indieweb.org/marginalia
# [snarfed] (argh, sorry, I mixed up the link for reply contexts above, meant to link to https://indieweb.org/reply-context#Markup)
sebbu joined the channel
# trwnh yeah [snarfed] the first thing i did was read those pages ^^; the main thing i'm getting out of my reading though is that a lot of the time the markup and building blocks seem unduly weighted toward recreating silo functionality and maintaining compatibility through POSSE. meanwhile i'm trying to start with a mostly clean slate approach and i'm more interested in the semantics being fully expressive. so i'm considering using both u-in-reply-to
# trwnh and u-quotation-of even though [tantek] above implied that they were indeed disjoint. i'm also considering *dropping* h-cite because i'm unsure that quoting someone is always citing them. but i might use some kind of h-x-* to avoid having the properties of the quote leak into the scope of the h-entry
# trwnh i guess the thing i need to think more about is, what are the semantics of .u-quotation-of? because .u-in-reply-to seems pretty clear, you are responding to the thing
# trwnh and the other thing is of course trying to clear up the fuzzy boundary between a "citation" and a "quote"
# 
Loqi A citation is a reference to something (a way to look up what) someone said, wrote, or photographed/captured, typically a published work of some kind, these days often on the web https://indieweb.org/cite
# Loqi ok, I added "to do: add minimal Why and How to sections with minimal markup examples of a link or a name (or both)" to the "See Also" section of /h-cite https://indieweb.org/wiki/index.php?diff=97654&oldid=91083
# trwnh i guess what's tripping me up (aside from lack of examples as you mention) is that i think the main entity is not the link or author name, but rather the quoted content (or possibly an e-summary as we discussed earlier)
troojg and [asuh] joined the channel
[tw2113] joined the channel
# trwnh the main use case for now is like how you'd quote someone on a forum to reply to part of their post, which i *guess* would currently best fit into .u-in-reply-to.h-cite? it's just a bit of mental weirdness because it doesn't feel like a citation to me. maybe i'm wrong about this but i see h-cite and citations as kind of a way to collect references such that you could build a list of child h-cites within the larger h-entry. at least that is what
# trwnh most of the current documentation leads me to believe, with the language calling out "citations and references" and the examples not including excerpted content (only a wee mention of p-content for tweets) and the focus being "a smaller simpler set of only 8 properties to solve the specific problem of how to markup citations in an article that refers to other articles"
# trwnh i am also going to consider other use-cases but this is the one i'm starting with
# trwnh like, if the usage/purpose/focus of h-cite has evolved away from the strict subset described on indieweb and microformats wikis, then maybe that should be called out or clarified somewhere? because i am certainly going to use h-cite in marking up my essay references, i'm just unsure if it *also* applies in a non-essay non-article context where you are not really intending the quote to be added to a list of references, you are doing something
# trwnh else with it (like responding to it with u-in-reply-to, or making it into a "quotation" with u-quotation-of (which i'm still not clear what that entails semantically))
[qubyte], [morganm] and troojg joined the channel
rrix and geoffo joined the channel
# trwnh i wasn't around for those but i'm vaguely aware that there is some disagreement between various authorities on whether it should always refer to a creative work or if it's fine to refer to people. fwiw i generally find the former argument more convincing (per MDN, WHATWG, W3C) but i get why someone would want/think of using it on people as a means of attribution.
# trwnh in any case yeah there should be more clarifying documentation that "even though it's called h-cite and started out as a way to markup citations as reference, it has evolved to be used in more informal contexts" or something like that
# trwnh also if the general position is "quotations are always also citations" then that would be helpful to have stated
# trwnh but re: "identifying the source of a quotation" this is what's tripping me up still, because some quotes don't have a source, or the source is offline and therefore inappropriate for the cite= attr
# trwnh a quote might have attribution but not citation, basically
# trwnh in the "quote to reply in a forum" use case this is generally not the case because the quote is simultaneously a quote (with e-summary?), reply (u-in-reply-to), has attribution (the username/etc), and has citation (url of the forum post)
# trwnh so i think naively i would tend to using .u-in-reply-to.u-quotation-of.h-cite for that use case
# trwnh but also there are other use cases where a quote is a quote, not a reply, has attribution, but has no citation
# trwnh for which i would remove the .u-in-reply-to since it's not a reply, but also because the quote doesn't have a citation then there is no url to refer to, and u-quotation-of feels inappropriate (because doesn't u-* mean url parsing?), and again there's no citation there's just a quote with attribution. so this leaves me with zero markup of the quote, and no h-* entity to markup the attribution either (for example with p-name)
# trwnh i know you said "don't overthink it" but i think it ends up mostly boiling down to "some quotes have attribution but no citation"
# trwnh unless you directly equate attributions and citations, which feels like a bridge i'm not yet convinced i should cross
# trwnh (this is what leads me to considering `.h-x-quote .p-author.h-card` as the attribution and `.h-x-quote .e-content` (or e-summary?) as the quoted content (or summary?)
JadedBlueEyes joined the channel
# 
[tantek] start with using <blockquote> </blockquote> for the text being quoted, and <cite> </cite> for the attribution, that's good enough for now. inventing a bunch of one-off microformats is generally a waste of time unless you're planning to also write a bunch of consuming code with a specific consuming code use-case in mind
# [0x3b0b] I feel like I get where you're coming from, because if you aggregate some of the information from various places about "citations" in general (not the Chevy), the cite element, and h-cite, I can see how they come across as things that may have drifted apart more in usage than one might expect given their relationships. It's a kind of conversation I'd likely be eager to engage with in various ways if I had more energy today, and one I might be...
# trwnh [0x3b0b] if you don't write the blog post then i will :p at the very least, i want to record my thoughts here in a form other than irc chat logs