[uf-discuss] Size considerations
andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wed Oct 18 16:04:22 PDT 2006
<b5d3b8c70610180449p3e10d71fwae034af48b180aa4 at mail.gmail.com>, Charles
Roper <charles.roper at gmail.com> writes
>Is is considered better to have longer, easier-to-read, more
>descriptive, more semantically correct attribute values over shorter,
>more concise, bandwidth-saving ones?
Its not the length, its what you do with it ;-)
As in all things, it's a matter of balance.
>I would also
>argue that longer, more readable attributes are more in keeping with
>the uF goal of being for humans first, machines second.
But where a short, possibly abbreviated, attribute name is
human-readable, then surely it's the better choice?
>What do others think?
Would I be right in thinking that it's gmail which is breaking your
sig-sep (the two dashes should be followed by a space, but are not)?
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>
Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
More information about the microformats-discuss