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

Scott Reynen scott at randomchaos.com
Wed Oct 25 16:30:39 PDT 2006

On Oct 25, 2006, at 5:15 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:

> Thanks Charles.
> However I still have no idea why these things apply to specifying  
> which page
> among of group of equivalent pages is authoritative and why  
> Microformats do
> not.  The latter seem a perfect fit to me, and what you listed  
> either don't
> apply to general web pages, are years off and can't be used today,  
> are not
> related, or don't provide the features needed. The microformat  
> concept would
> work perfectly for this (and similar problems.)

I think the key difference is the subject of this thread.   
Microformats are good for visible data.  Other formats are good for  
invisible data.  Most of what Charles listed is in wide use today.   
You just don't see it because it's not on the visible web.  If the  
data you want to describe is also not on the visible web, it's  
probably more appropriate for one of these invisible data formats.

Consider reuse of the data.  Microformats have less invisible reuse  
potential because they don't fit a general schema like RDF or XSD.   
But microformats have more visible reuse potential because, well, the  
data is visible.  If your data is invisible and you tried to format  
it with microformats, you'd be losing both invisible reuse potential  
and visible reuse potential.  You can pound that nail with a  
screwdriver, but why would you?


More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list