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

[Mike Schinkel]

>> that is *only* for machine consumption
>> Conversely, if he's unsure whether the metadata *has* to be invisible,
then perhaps this is still a worthwhile discussion.

For clarity, there is nothing that says that the metadata I was proposing
and am additionally envisioning couldn't be visible.  It might even become a
best practice to make it visible. But in current practice today the data
typically isn't visible (if it is there, which is unlikely) and some people
might not want to make it visible (probably because they have a pre-Web 2.0
mentality, IMO.)

>> However, if the end result is *outside* the scope of how we as a
community understand microformats, don't expect to get a lot of official
support

Without support, it make little sense to do it, which IMO means creating a
parallel initiative which is duplicated effort, will confuse the public, and
is just not a good idea all round. But if I can't convince the group that it
makes sense, I certainly can't berate the group into doing it. So if I get a
consistent "no" then that's that (kinda funny how in the early days of the
web everyone wanted to splinter.  :)

>> In particular, it would be confusing for him to call his proposal a
"microformat" if it did not go through the documented microformat process

Agreed.

-Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: microformats-discuss-bounces at microformats.org
[mailto:microformats-discuss-bounces at microformats.org] On Behalf Of Dr.
Ernie Prabhakar
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 1:38 PM
To: Microformats Discuss
Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Visible Data...a Microformat requirement?

Hi Andy,

On Oct 26, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> In message <ECE2E018-7D8E-4D9F-B73C-81C4D23E14F3 at opendarwin.org>, Dr.
> Ernie Prabhakar <drernie at opendarwin.org> writes
>
>> As long as you don't  call it a microformat, feel free to experiment.
>> :-)
>
> Why shouldn't he call it a microformat?

Sorry, I may have conflated too many issues. The point I wanted to make
(which I communicated poorly) is:

a) If he's committed to marking up *invisible* metadata that is
*only* for machine consumption, then [IMHO] that's beyond the scope of what
this group was constituted to do.

b) Conversely, if he's unsure whether the metadata *has* to be invisible,
then perhaps this is still a worthwhile discussion.

c) Either way, he's welcome to experiment with microformat-derived ideas

d) However, if the end result is *outside* the scope of how we as a
community understand microformats, don't expect to get a lot of official
support

e) In particular, it would be confusing for him to call his proposal a
"microformat" if it did not go through the documented microformat process

http://microformats.org/wiki/process

I apologize if that came across as needlessly confrontational.

Best,
-- Ernie P.


_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss at microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss