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

Scott Reynen scott at randomchaos.com
Thu Oct 26 10:46:26 PDT 2006

On Oct 26, 2006, at 3:07 AM, Mike Schinkel wrote:

> I'm still not convinced.  I've only heard generalities and no  
> specifics on
> anything I've heard regarding my use-case.  RDF is far to  
> complicated for
> the average person creating HTML; one reason why I don't think it  
> will ever
> fly.  I still know of nothing else besides Microformats that can  
> fill this
> role; can you give me some specifics that:
> * Is very simple to add
> * Doesn't require access to <head>
> * Can be done today

My suggestion to use invisible data formats was prefaced with the  
scenario that your data is invisible, based on the subject of this  
thread.  The above criteria seem to contradict the subject of this  
thread.  Is the data published on the web today or not?  If it is,  
you should start collecting it and analyzing to see if it's suitable  
for a microformat.  If it's not published, we can't research the  
publishing, so we'd be creating a microformat based on assumptions.

Such an assumption-based process doesn't meet the standards we've  
been applying to the word "microformat."  We're not changing that  
standard because we, as a community, believe that basing formats on  
existing behavior is an important practice.  There are other formats  
that are based on assumptions, and the complication you don't like is  
largely a result of that practice.  Pick your poison.


More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list