[uf-new] microformat granularity: currency and measure
andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Thu Jul 19 13:31:40 PDT 2007
In message <ACDF0875-B2D1-4BFE-B09D-AACF459A645B at makedatamakesense.com>,
Scott Reynen <scott at makedatamakesense.com> writes
>>> "symbol" suffered the same lack of consensus, possibly due to a lack
>>>of understanding of the benefits. Maybe a more detailed explanation
>>>of the benefits of such a class name would be worth writing. If I
>>>understood correctly, the main value would be for a user agent to be
>>>able to replace it with the symbol of the currency that the amount
>>>is converted to. If that's the case, I would argue that a user
>>>agent may not want to replace the content, since it may fool the
>>>user into believing that these amounts are guaranteed by the
>>>publisher/merchant, where in fact, they would be mere estimates,
>>>which may differ from the actual rate charged by the merchant or the financial intermediary.
>> That's hypothetical argument backed with no evidence.
>As is the value of "symbol," which I gather was Guillaume's point, and
>a larger concern. Until that value is explained more convincingly and
>gains more consensus, is there any harm in moving forward with the
>smaller set of properties everyone already supports? We can always
>add "symbol" later, right? Or is "symbol" so important that a
>currency microformat is useless without it? If so, that importance
>isn't yet apparent.
My contention is that published amounts of money - such as those listed
as examples on the wiki, and others - often include a symbol, that
symbol may be obscure, or take the form of a letter which is
indistinguishable from other text. It may occur before, in the middle,
or following numbers.
Only by marking it up can we be sure that parsers know to remove it when
converting to an alternative currency.
The same applies to "value" in words (as in "five pounds" or "10
More information about the microformats-new