[uf-discuss] Microformat tools bogosity test

[Kevin Marks]

On Mar 7, 2007, at 1:51 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
> There I disagree - as far as the theory goes, for microformats the
> problem is effectively solved.
>
> The notion of profile URIs has gone through the community process, and
> there's even a microformat to support them: XMDP. It's been accepted
> that each microformat should have a profile URI [1].

Agreed.

> The remaining problem is that it's not possible to both follow good
> practice in regard to web architecture *and* respect the convention
> side of microformats. If I want to use a profile URI for hReview my
> only option right now is to make up one of my own. This is legitimate
> in terms of web architecture, but may lead to mutliple equivalent
> profiles making the tool developer's job that much harder.

If you make up an XMDP profile, I'm sure we can put it on  
microformats.org so there is a blessed one.

> Just to reiterate the rationale for profile URIs : if publishers
> include one, they have made a clear assertion according to the
> conventions of web architecture and the relevant specs that they're
> using that microformat. Consumer tools which maximally respect the
> intent of the publisher will check for profile URIs and proceed
> accordingly. Ideally a clear distinction will be made between data
> that has been extracted following the chain of authority and that
> which is the result of scraping/assumptions by the scraping tool. This
> certainly doesn't rule out the case of simple scraping & display, for
> many purposes that's perfectly adequate. But it's ludicrous that the
> webarch-friendly option isn't currently available.

So, help make it so. We could declare an official URL and put your  
soupdragon there, which would satisfy the opaque URL you want, but if  
you made up an XMDP, that would be far better.