On 11/24/05, Scott Reynen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brian Suda wrote: > > > the advantage of saying what you have available will minumized the > > crawl space. I can get one file that tells me everything, or crawl the > > entire 40,000 Avon hCard pages to try to get the same thing. > > This seems counter to the DRY and/or users-first mantra of > microformats. If Avon made all microformats available in a single > file distinct from their existing user-focused navigation structure, > why would they bother keeping the user-focused data microformatted? > If they do keep it, it's repetition, and if they don't keep it, it's > separating user data and machine data. And at the point, why would > they use microformats at all? >
I am not advocating site maps here. That existing navigation could be more informative though. > > Look at Google Sitemaps, that is a single file that describes the > > pages on the site, along with last-update time. This helps to limit > > un-needed crawls, bandwidth, time, etc. > > But Google says [1] "Please note that the Sitemap Protocol > supplements, but does not replace, the crawl-based mechanisms that > search engines already use to discover URLs." So it's not actually > limiting un-needed crawls; it's only pointing to things that wouldn't > be found by crawling the user-centric website, which in my > understanding should not include microformats. > Again, I am really not looking for a sitemaps uF. I just want more meaningful links to uF data. I have been fighting tooth and nail against a "sitemap" type approach in the AtomPP WG for weeks. - Luke _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
