<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <html> <head> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered)"> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue> <div class=Section1> But many sites do present a sitemap already for humans first. I think it’s quite helpful when a site does have one. Not everyone will generate them, true, but a sitemap can also represent a logical structure that isn’t necessary reflective of a filesystem structure.   The sitemap itself can be content for the end users. If one existed, wouldn’t we want to take advantage of it?   If you are looking for Microformats on my site and pointed an aggregator at my home page, I’d rather you use my sitemap than crawl my entire site.   I understand the DRY principle as well, but in this case, the sitemap is a unique piece of content that isn’t repeated anywhere else. If you think about it, even having xpmd’s in the head section is a form of repetition. If I remove a microformat or add one to a page, I should remember to update the xpmds in the head section.   <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </div> From: microformats-discuss-bounces@microformats.org [mailto:microformats-discuss-bounces@microformats.org] On Behalf Of Antonio Touriño Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 5:17 PM To: Microformats Discuss Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Enumerating Microformats on a Page </div>   Hi all, First post to the list after lurking for quite some time. Hopefully I don't come accross as too negative. I will give it a shot. <div> On 3/24/06, Scott Reynen <<a href="mailto:scott@randomchaos.com">scott@randomchaos.com</a>> wrote: If microformat site maps existed, I would use them as starting points to know where to look, but I wouldn't trust them as any sort of accurate listing of what's on a domain just because I know I would likely forget to update my own if I had one.  </div> I don't think having a sitemap is such a hot idea precisely for this reason. It violates the DRY (don't repeat yourself) principle. You will update your site and of course, at some point you will forget to update your siteindex unless you use some sort of automated tool to do the updating for you, but you KNOW that not everyone is going to use a tool such as this. So I think we are better off having just tools that detect the presence of uf's by parsing the whole shebang. If you add a siteindex you will complicate things for the publisher which will hurt adoption. Remember humans first, machines second. Cheers, Antonio -- Antonio Touriño Consultor en Tecnologías Web Brilliance Tech </div> </body> </html>