[uf-discuss] uF Discovery?

Luke Arno luke.arno at gmail.com
Thu Nov 24 10:37:20 PST 2005

On 11/24/05, Scott Reynen <scott at randomchaos.com> wrote:
> Brian Suda wrote:
> > the advantage of saying what you have available will minumized the
> > crawl space. I can get one file that tells me everything, or crawl the
> > entire 40,000 Avon hCard pages to try to get the same thing.
> This seems counter to the DRY and/or users-first mantra of
> microformats.  If Avon made all microformats available in a single
> file distinct from their existing user-focused navigation structure,
> why would they bother keeping the user-focused data microformatted?
> If they do keep it, it's repetition, and if they don't keep it, it's
> separating user data and machine data.  And at the point, why would
> they use microformats at all?

I am not advocating site maps here. That existing
navigation could be more informative though.

> > Look at Google Sitemaps, that is a single file that describes the
> > pages on the site, along with last-update time. This helps to limit
> > un-needed crawls, bandwidth, time, etc.
> But Google says [1] "Please note that the Sitemap Protocol
> supplements, but does not replace, the crawl-based mechanisms that
> search engines already use to discover URLs."  So it's not actually
> limiting un-needed crawls; it's only pointing to things that wouldn't
> be found by crawling the user-centric website, which in my
> understanding should not include microformats.

Again, I am really not looking for a sitemaps uF.

I just want more meaningful links to uF data.

I have been fighting tooth and nail against a "sitemap"
type approach in the AtomPP WG for weeks.

- Luke

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list