[uf-discuss] Enumerating Microformats on a Page

Phil Haack haacked at gmail.com
Fri Mar 24 17:25:59 PST 2006

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.



From: microformats-discuss-bounces at microformats.org
[mailto:microformats-discuss-bounces at microformats.org] On Behalf Of Antonio
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 5:17 PM
To: Microformats Discuss
Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Enumerating Microformats on a Page


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.

On 3/24/06, Scott Reynen <scott at randomchaos.com> 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.  

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


Antonio Touriño
Consultor en Tecnologías Web
Brilliance Tech 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/attachments/20060324/c80e3e77/attachment.htm

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list