fczuardi - Slashdot User

Comment Re:rev="shorturl" (Score 1) 354

by fczuardi on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @07:45AM (#27568313) Attached to: Can rev="canonical" Replace URL-Shortening Services?

I like it. Sounds definitely better than rev="canonical".

Although I don't agree that rel="alternate" implies a different format.

Comment "rev" not "rel" (Score 1) 354

by fczuardi on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @07:15AM (#27568113) Attached to: Can rev="canonical" Replace URL-Shortening Services?

The parent is not Informative, rev in this case is correct since the resource linked is a NOT the canonical page but a short-url version of the canonical page you are currently on, so the relationship is:

page A with long URL <--is the canonical url of--- page B with short URL

and NOT

page A with long URL ---is another address for the canonical url--> page B with short URL

Page A is the canonical, the long URL page is the authoritative destination, page B is just a shortcut, and not the other way around, so when in page A, if your software are looking for alternate address of that canonical page with shorter urls your software should look for reverse links containing "canonical" as the value. Links for pages that have the current page as the canonical are the ones with rev, not rel.

See http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.3.1 to understand.

I admit it is a little confusing, maybe they should be using rel="alternate mirror", rel="alternate short-url" or simply rel="alternate" instead, to indicate that the link points to an alternate version of the current page. But saying that the link is of a page that points reversely to the current page that is the canonical is not wrong

Comment If you want your updates to be Creative Commons (Score 1) 183

by fczuardi on Monday March 30, 2009 @08:50PM (#27396371) Attached to: The Copyrightability of Twitter Posts

You just need to voluntarily tell the world with one update which license you use. TweetCC is a great website to help you with that: http://tweetcc.com/

Comment Re:Wise choice (Score 5, Informative) 204

by fczuardi on Monday March 02, 2009 @09:17PM (#27046985) Attached to: White House Ditches YouTube

Nice so it can be re posted on YouTube with little effort. Still think using a free service that everybody and their dog uses makes a lot more sense than paying for it.

Yes it Can... be reposted to Youtube or Vimeo, or Archive.org or Blip.tv or even your preferred P2P network, you can even host it yourself because as far as I know this videos are all public domain.

But you don't need to re-post them to Youtube and Vimeo at least, because whitehouse folks already do that for you:

They only stopped embedding youtube videos on the whitehouse gov site (maybe to stop advertising google's service for free on a tax-payer funded website, although the link to Vimeo is still there), but they are still publishing copies of the weekly videos on youtube and other free services that everybody and their dog uses...

Slashdot Top Deals