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

[Tantek Ç elik]

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.

Thanks,

Tantek