[uf-discuss] Dated currency examples?

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <01938218-04D0-4554-A0F7-4280B78C4D91 at randomchaos.com>, Scott
Reynen <scott at randomchaos.com> writes

>On Sep 24, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
>> In message <56374A8B-7B98-45E2-9C0C-CD3F8498C3DC at randomchaos.com>,
>>Scott
>> Reynen <scott at randomchaos.com> writes
>>
>>> In the currency-brainstorming [1] page, I see a few straw man
>>> proposals with dated currency.
>>
>> No you don't; you see two real, albeit simplified for clarity,
>>examples
>> [3], [4], marked up according to the straw-man proposal (and
>>subsequent
>> suggested modifications).
>
>If I'm understanding this, the examples on the -brainstorming page  are
>taken from real-world examples not yet detailed on the -examples  page.

Some are; some are (IIRC) on that page , some are hypothetical (and need
be no more, being very basic - we don't really need a real word example
to know that "$5" occurs!).

>What's not clear to me now is how it was decided which  sections of
>those real-world examples are relevant to the currency  microformat and
>which are out-of-scope.  Dates look out-of-scope to  me.

There is no "scope", only a "straw-man-scope", and they're within that
(for good reason).

>  If I'm right about this, then the straw man proposals should  reflect
>this.  But assuming I'm wrong, I think it's safe to also  assume other
>people will be similarly wrong, and so it would be good  to have a
>clear explanation of why dates are included while other  loosely
>related information (e.g. tax, discounts, accepted forms of  payment,
>etc.) are not

Because the date has direct relevance to the real-world value of the
figure displayed; the others do not.

Granted, all the other cases you cite, could be made into microformats,
which include a "currency" microformat component.

>, in the wiki where everyone can find it.  If  such an explanation is
>in there already, I've missed it.

Feel free.

>>>  I think I understand the general  idea, that currencies change value
>>> over time, but in what currently  published HTML would such date
>>>markup
>>> be used?
>>
>> Any page which says "used to be worth", "was paid" "used to earn",
>>"then
>> valued at", etc., etc.
>>
>> It could also be used to mark up current prices, on pages which are
>>not
>> likely to be updated when the value referred to changes (e.g. reviews
>> [5]), or simply devalues through inflation (e.g. news stories [6],
>>[7]).
>
>As I said before, my suspicion is that /relatively/ few pages on
>today's web are actually publishing a date for the currency values
>(which may or may not be the same as the publication date), but I'd  be
>happy to see this suspicion of mine clearly contradicted by /more/
>specific examples in the currency-examples page.

Feel free.

>>> I'm sure there are  examples of dated currency published on the web,
>>> but I suspect they  are far under 20% of the currency values
>>>published.
>>
>> So?
>
>When fewer people are publishing something, we have a smaller pool of
>potential adopters of a microformat.  Microformats face a chicken-egg
>problem because publishers are hesitant to start publishing something
>with few tools to consume it, and tool developers are hesitant to
>develop new tools to consume microformat data that isn't yet widely
>published.

But in this case, with a date component, booth are effectively getting
"something for nothing".

>And without both publishers and tool developers using a  microformat,
>it's not really helping anyone.  For this reason, we  first target
>types of data that are being widely published, to  maximize the
>likelihood of success for a specific microformat.  This  is my take on
>what many refer to as simply "the 80/20 rule," as  mentioned on the
>process page in the *-brainstorming section.  I'm  sure someone else
>can explain it better, as I wasn't around when this  rough number
>system was adopted as a decision-making standard in this  community.  I
>mention the (suspected) lack of published dated  currency because I'd
>like to see a currency microformat adopted, and  I suspect removing the
>dates from an initial version would make that  adoption more likely.

I've seen no evidence, and I'm not convinced by your argument, that that
is the case.

>>> I'm interested  in seeing this microformat completed and adopted and
>>> I'd hate to see  unnecessary complexity prevent that from happening.
>>
>> There is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be completed and
>>adopted;
>> there is no "unnecessary complexity".
>
>I think you might be underestimating the difficulty of convincing
>people to use microformats.  But I'll be happy to find I was wrong
>come adoption time.

Who will be dissuaded, by the inclusion of an *optional* component?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
                Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards:  <http://www.no2id.net/>

                Free Our Data:  <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>