[uf-discuss] Visible Data...a Microformat requirement?

Tantek Ç elik tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Mon Oct 23 00:24:31 PDT 2006

On 10/23/06 12:11 AM, "Mike Schinkel" <mikeschinkel at gmail.com> wrote:

>>> If it is not worth or appropriate to make the information visible, then
>>> it is not worth trusting the information and certainly not worth the time to
>>> make a microformat for it.
> But what if the website publisher (or graphic designer) does not want that
> information to be visible on the page?

Then it is not worth trusting the information nor worth the time making a
microformat for it.

> Some may, but other's may not. I'm
> trying to follow the principle that Microformats should not require the user
> to really "change" anything beyond adding Microformat functionality.

That's right.

> If they don't currently display this metadata, are you saying that a
> Microformat should force them to do so?

No, I am saying that the microformat shouldn't bother representing it.

Keep microformats as simple and as minimal as possible.

That means invisible data and properties are left out of microformats.

>>> Have you tried using as many existing microformats as you can on your
>>> current sites? 
> Ohhhh Yeah!  I've been combing through even Microformat you have listed and
> reading each in-depth.  Sad to say, but I've probaby got more than twice as
> many in mind as you currently have listed...

It doesn't matter how many you may have in mind.

The question remains - have you tried using *just* the existing microformats
to at least add some more semantics to your pages?

> But I don't want to propose
> anything until I've got time to flesh them out otherwise I'll be in a
> bloodbath of trying to justify them before I've done all the required
> research.

By using existing microformats first, you will better understand what may
need to be created.

Postpone proposing any microformats until you have first made use of
existing ones.



More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list