[uf-discuss] URI schemes vs. visible data (was Re:
communications log, "tel" microformat?)
benjamincarlyle at optusnet.com.au
Fri Dec 2 20:59:24 PST 2005
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 18:15 -0800, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> On 11/26/05 1:07 AM, "Benjamin Carlyle" <benjamincarlyle at optusnet.com.au>
> > On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 10:25 -0800, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> > perhaps
> > it is even worth reexamining the geo and addr microformats in favour of
> > developing URI-based alternatives.
> It's an interesting question to consider.
> Here is the key.
> Authors aren't publishing links to geo and address information.
> They're publishing *visible text* of geo and address information.
> So the easiest thing to do, for the author, is to leave it as visible text.
Thanks for the input. I have to admit that I did come to some of the
same places in my own thinking while writing the email. I'll just pop in
one last thought:
The thing that really triggered me to post was reading the geo
specification on the microformats wiki:
<abbr class="latitude" title="37.408183">N 37° 24.491</abbr>
<abbr class="longitude" title="-122.13855">W 122° 08.313</abbr>
It seemed to me that this would be simpler described as something like:
<a href="geo:37.408183,-122.13855">N 37° 24.491 W 122° 08.313</a>
What struck me really was that the visible data is ignored in this
specification, so it seemed that URIs might be a way forward. On the
other hand it would probably be even simpler to say:
<abbr class="geo" title="37.408183,-122.13855">N 37° 24.491 W 122° 08.313</a>
or <span class="geo">37.408183,-122.13855</span>
Benjamin Carlyle <benjamincarlyle at optusnet.com.au>
More information about the microformats-discuss