Non-visible microformats was [uf-discuss] Principles
mikeschinkel at gmail.com
Sat Dec 16 18:24:26 PST 2006
Angus McIntyre wrote:
> The existing invisible microformats relate to information
> that is (a) never visible and (b) is harder to abuse this
> way. (Those are distinct points: there is abusable invisible
> information, as shown by the fact that Google doesn't index
> META keywords and descriptions).
I wasn't considering that point, so thanks for mentioning it to consider.
OTOH, there are an extrodinary number of use-cases where the semantic markup
with be used between known and trusted entities where the aggregator has a
list of known domain names to crawl, and in that case it's not an issue; for
example: distributors and their vendors.
> #2 would be to launch a distinct initiative (with its own
> site, wiki, mailing list, and line of endearing plush toys)
> to define non-visible things-that-are-like-microformats for
> those who want to take the risk of incurring the wrath of
> Google, accompanied by the clear caveat that "this stuff can
> get you banned from every decent search engine".
That's my plan.
> If that's not an
> obstacle, a combination of a microformat-endorsed marking
> convention and something like Andy Mabbett's proposed UNAPI
> <http://unapi.info/> might be a solution here.
I've read the site but still haven't understood what unapi is trying to
> It would seem to me that #4 and #5 might be worth considering
> in the context of microformats; #2 and #3 probably wouldn't
> be (but that doesn't mean that they're not worth considering
> in their own right, somewhere else).
Well, I'm going to try #2 anyway. :)
I think it will be the easiest way.
More information about the microformats-discuss