This is a post in response to Kilian's recent post about the possible creation of an XPN. Hopefully, this post will both clarify the role of the rel tag and explain the growing social nature of the Internet, contained in one tiny tag.
The rel attribute show relations via links. A possible implementation—
<link href="http://www.google.com" rel="me" />
—indicates that the site mentioned (the href attribute) is related to the person who is linking to that site in a certain way (the rel attribute). In this case, Google is "me" in relation to me. This is, of course, most certainly NOT the case (I was going for a shorter site name than mine). But it's an interesting concept, personifying sites. Interesting...and still, very strange that we've evolved to the point where we can refer to whole sites as people and know that there's truth behind our statements.
Possible limitations?
The most important values of any rel attribute are the simplicity of the relationship and neutrality. Therefore, one should not have rel="sister" or rel="brother" because rel="sibling" already exists and covers both without needing to describe the relationship beyond a certain point. That way, the same value of rel can be utilized backwards and forwards without needing to specify exactly how two people are related. Therefore, the rel will form a large interweaving band of "friends", "siblings", "sweethearts", "co-workers", etc., to link together the web...literally.
When you annotate a hyperlink to someone with rel='friend' for example, you are saying that you are a friend to that person. Whether or not you consider yourself to be a friend of someone else is something under your control, something which you yourself are the authority over, and thus it makes sense that you be able to specify it. In addition, you are describing precisely the relationship between you two from your perspective, and nothing more. You are not describing anything about the other person, such as their race, age, preferences, or gender for that matter.
It seems to me as if that takes the personality out of the whole concept. Suddenly, we're all linked to in these diluted and completely neutral ways. No names in links, no specific relationships (you can technically create your own, but that would undermine the standardization (making an accepted set of something for everyone's use) of the XFN)...it seems very reminiscent of 1984, in the sense that the everyone's a "comrade", and essentially the same.
Kilian's proposal
In order to expand the rel attribute's range, my Mintpages buddy, Kilian, thought up an extension to the XFN — the XPN, for business and professional relationships. Possible values of rel include "designer", "partner", or "client", along with several more that have not been detailed. The social atmosphere of the Internet depends on relationships like these — developer and client, designer and partner, author and creator (and even back to friend, sibling, sweetheart, and spouse) — already. So standardizing these business relationships creates a whole new playground for web designers and developers. After all, the Internet is all about communication and social interaction. Why not readily display that when you link to other people? The hyperlink is a very powerful thing when you think about it.
If you're interested in learning about the evolution of the hyperlink, I strongly recommend that you read/listen to Jeremy Keith's "In Praise Of The Hyperlink. It's long, but it's pretty cool.
Concluding...
So the XPN is definitely a great concept, and a wonderful extension of the rel attribute...necessary for the advancement of the Internet as a social network. And yet, my only worry is whether it will be strong enough on its own, as there are only so many possible professional rel relationships, in comparison with the myriad friend relationships. I hope it'll work itself out soon!
Read 4 comments (Leave a comment?)
Kilian Valkhof said:
Excellent explanation! However, there is a small subtlety: the XFN rel attribute refers to a ‘website made by’, rather than the ‘website being’. Subtle difference, but I’d rather make a website than be one :p
You are right about standardization being limiting, that’s absolutely true. But the name itself already implies that. By making something a standard, you also implicitly state what you should not do.
But, that is really the only way to be able to do something with it. if everyone made up there own rel’s, you wouldn’t be able to rely on it. for example, the friend attribute, I could call my friends buddy, homie, or mate, but when I do that, there is no way to say something about it on a larger scale. Which is what the rel attribute somewhat is about.
I am glad you share my opinion on XPN being a good extension to the social web :)
Posted on December 29, 2006 7:18 AM; Permalink
Ranjani said:
Well, the way it’s phrased is confusing :P
Yeah, the structured relationships are a big part of it. I really have always liked the XFN and newer innovations like Microformats. But the XFN especially needs to make room for designers and developers to work their magic :D
Posted on December 29, 2006 11:26 AM; Permalink
Michael Visser said:
Within the Links section of WordPress 2.0.5 admin when adding a new Link you are able to ‘rel’ it. Sure “friend” is one of the major tags, but you can include “met in person”, “muse” - idol - , “chrush”, “coworker” and a few other generics.
As you said, it’s a start and the creative realm will expand on it. Found any decent link post rel generators? That’d be cool.
btw, hate to admin but I like your old design better. :D
Posted on January 5, 2007 6:49 PM; Permalink
Ranjani said:
I’m definitely aware of the Wordpress rels. I wish more blogging software would do that without hacks (such as D. Keith Robinson’s MT template hacks) :D
This is a great set of resources that I realize I haven’t really looked at. The XFN 1.1 creator is probably the one I was looking for originally.
Yeah, this layout is a lot cleaner, but hopefully, I can implement enough of this layout into my next version that it shouldn’t make an enormous difference. I could probably just revamp this layout and make things look neater…but I wanted to try something new. If anything, it’s just a way for me to practice my CSS :D
Posted on January 7, 2007 1:56 PM; Permalink