[uf-discuss] Dated currency examples?
andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Sun Sep 24 14:13:38 PDT 2006
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>,
>> Reynen <scott at randomchaos.com> writes
>>> In the currency-brainstorming  page, I see a few straw man
>>> proposals with dated currency.
>> No you don't; you see two real, albeit simplified for clarity,
>> , , marked up according to the straw-man proposal (and
>> 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.
>>> I think I understand the general idea, that currencies change value
>>> over time, but in what currently published HTML would such date
>>> be used?
>> Any page which says "used to be worth", "was paid" "used to earn",
>> valued at", etc., etc.
>> It could also be used to mark up current prices, on pages which are
>> likely to be updated when the value referred to changes (e.g. reviews
>> ), or simply devalues through inflation (e.g. news stories ,
>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.
>>> 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
>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
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
>> 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?
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>
Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
More information about the microformats-discuss