When you define a rel link type, you automatically define it for rev too. From W3C:
Consider two documents A and B.
Document A: <LINK href="docB" rel="foo">
Has exactly the same meaning as:
Document B: <LINK href="docA" rev="foo">
So when I tag this entry with Tags,
Technorati could use
rev="tag" on the link back.
And I think they should. Because the
Tags page contains many links.
Some are links to pages with the Tags tag,
others are not. A human can see the difference from the layout, but robots don't read layout.
It would be useful for a search robot to know that all links with
have something in common with each other, and with the last segment of the page's URL.
At Technorati, anyone can get a link back when they tag their own page.
At sites like http://hoppa.com/, anyone could also tag their page as
But that will not give an automatic link back, because Hoppa is edited.
In such cases,
rev="tag" would be even more valuable to search engines.
But to be tag compatible, the URL should probably have been
Still, Hoppa is better off than DMOZ, where the page that is listing
weblog search engines
has the tag
Search_Engines, which is far more general than the content of the page.
75 clicks above the Kuntaur Bridge
Printing id="tags" in IE6
Microformats for Micropublishing
That does not fit this blog. Most entries, including this one, has no geographic significance. Those who have, refer to different places. Generally in about the same corner of the world, but I have also refered to both Tórshavn and Phnom Penh in the same sentence.
Micropublishing: Publishing small pieces of information that do not get their context as part of a larger document?not as part of a larger text, nor pointed to from the previous part, of from a table of content. Rather, piece gets in context from indexing, tagging and searching.
This blog entry may serve as example. It is part of a blog, but is unrelated to most of the other items. The context is given by the Micropublishing tag and whatever search result or other link that might have led you here.
M/V Leonid Miloslavskiy
IN GADO SPERAMVS
Trustable TLDs ?
We may need more TLDs because there may be some level of trust in a TLD. You can trust a .fo second level domain to use only ASCII letters, you can trust a .no second level domain to use only English, Norwegian and Sami letters.
ICANN of worms
The reality of this seems to be the the nation of Catalonia tries to get itself
a kind of
country code Top Level Domain
under cover of the language code .
What can I say? I live in the Faroe Islands, another stateless nation,
but one that has its own
fo. So I find it very reasonable that Catalonia should have its own
Spain may be opposed to the idea, but so is Norway to the
(The Bouvet Island is uninhabited. The unilaterally claimed Norwegian military base at Jan Mayen
shares the .
with the demilitarized Svalbard, which is under Norwegian control by
I foresee a lot of creative applications for
More interesting is the rush of political TLD
applications to come. The Commanche nation will try to reclaim the
com domain. The Basque may settle for the
eus language domain, or try to reclaim the
There is no general ISO language code for Sami, only codes for each
Thus, the Sami clearly need the .
non-ASCII domain names
With the introduction of
non-ASCII characters in domain names,
there is a case for language based domains.
com, you can use the
с to mimic a famous software company:
ccTLDs are generally safer for IDN domains.
E.g. .no specifies that only English, Norwegian and Sami characters
can be used. Mixing Norwegian and Sami in one domain name is allowed, like in
(IBM's demo page does not detect that the
á and the
ø are from different
languages, because they are both from ISO-8859-1.)
Homoglyphs betseen Norwegian and Sami is hardly any problem. But the .
us domain may have
a hundred or so native languages, and the .
com has to deal with the entire UNICODE set.
So language based domains may reduce the danger of homoglyphic fakes by
restricting their sub-domain names to one language. However, these language domains need not be
top level domains. They could be
(Many of these domain names are of course already taken.)