[uf-discuss] Visible Data...a Microformat requirement?
mikeschinkel at gmail.com
Fri Oct 27 00:46:12 PDT 2006
>> 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.
If that is the case, I apologize. I envision several different needs
although not all of them are fleshed out yet. And these are not needs I
just think people might have, they are needs that I've envision I will need
in order to optimize some projects I have planned.
>> 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.
It is possible. I'm doing tons of research right now (killing many trees
printing off documents at the W3.org and elsewhere). But maybe not.
>> If it's not published, we can't research the publishing, so we'd be
creating a microformat based on assumptions.
The example I gave is straightforward, and respectfully I don't think there
would be a lot of assumptions. Let me give another example for this
use-case (although I'm learning there may be existing things in HTML to
resolve this one specific use case.) Consider these three URLs:
Assuming they point to the same basic content but have different
Home >> Toyota >> 4Runner >> 1999
Home >> Toyota >> 1999 >> 4Runner
Home >> 1999 >> Toyota >> 4Runner
However, there really are the same page and I'd like to be able to say that
one of them is the "primary" or "authoritative" one (the website owner would
decide which one) and in the two that are not "primary" or "authoritative"
they would point to the one that is. It's possible that you could have the
following visible on the page:
This page is a duplicate of <a
As I said, this is but one example of data that helps describe a page that I
can envision I will need and that I believe could benefit the web in general
if it exists. I wish I had fleshed out my other examples at this point but I
haven't yet, and I certainly don't want to get the shot down because I
present them prematurely prepared.
From: microformats-discuss-bounces at microformats.org
[mailto:microformats-discuss-bounces at microformats.org] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 1:46 PM
To: Microformats Discuss
Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Visible Data...a Microformat requirement?
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
> * 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.
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss at microformats.org
More information about the microformats-discuss