[uf-discuss] species questions; process: examples questions
charles.roper at gmail.com
Mon Oct 23 01:12:01 PDT 2006
On 22/10/06, Benjamin West <bewest at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps you could be more clear about what it is you want to know.
> > What do you mean by "authoring practices"?
> > What do you mean by "the structure of the markup"?
> I don't know how to be any more clear. I've assumed up until now that
> everyone had a relatively shared meaning of "authoring practices",
> "publishing behaviour", and what structure means in the context of
> markup. Clearly we don't, so your answers aren't making any sense to
It seems fairly clear to me what you would like to know. You would
like more analysis on how the straw-man proposal relates to existing
markup practices. Or to put it another way, how does the straw-man
proposal reflect the way people are already marking up their content.
The answer (IMHO) is that it doesn't. The straw-man is based, I
believe, not on existing markup practice but on the ideal way of doing
things (as judged by Andy) based on existing, well founded,
terminology used in biology. In this sense I see it as being similar
to hCard, which is based on an existing, non-HTML, standard rather
than existing markup practice. I don't recall seeing much markup that
looked like current hCard implementations, at any rate. Question
being, is not mirroring existing markup practise a big issue here?
>From my own observations, through working in the field of biodiversity
and as a web designer, there doesn't appear to be much existing common
practice other than that of perhaps marking-up scientific names in
italic (or em) and common names in bold (or strong), or the scientific
name in bold and italic when it is not accompianied by a common name.
Other than that, it would seem to be a bit of a free for all; which is
part of the need for a microformat, of course, as being able to
reliably harvest this information would be incredibly useful.
> I've already expended too much energy on this to further explain, so
> perhaps others can jump in. Furthermore, by moving my work off the
> page it was meant to be on, I assume you find it tantamount to
> useless, and since there are many other areas my work has been deemed
> useful, I won't be interrupting yours anymore.
It's not useless; far from it. I found your grouping of examples by
publisher to be a very useful way of viewing the content.
More information about the microformats-discuss