On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 18:15 -0800, Tantek Çelik wrote: > On 11/26/05 1:07 AM, "Benjamin Carlyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 10:25 -0800, Tantek Çelik wrote: > > perhaps > > it is even worth reexamining the geo and addr microformats in favour of > > developing URI-based alternatives. > It's an interesting question to consider. > Here is the key. > Authors aren't publishing links to geo and address information. > They're publishing *visible text* of geo and address information. > So the easiest thing to do, for the author, is to leave it as visible text.
Thanks for the input. I have to admit that I did come to some of the same places in my own thinking while writing the email. I'll just pop in one last thought: The thing that really triggered me to post was reading the geo specification on the microformats wiki: <div class="geo"> <abbr class="latitude" title="37.408183">N 37° 24.491</abbr> <abbr class="longitude" title="-122.13855">W 122° 08.313</abbr> </div> It seemed to me that this would be simpler described as something like: <a href="geo:37.408183,-122.13855">N 37° 24.491 W 122° 08.313</a> What struck me really was that the visible data is ignored in this specification, so it seemed that URIs might be a way forward. On the other hand it would probably be even simpler to say: <abbr class="geo" title="37.408183,-122.13855">N 37° 24.491 W 122° 08.313</a> or <span class="geo">37.408183,-122.13855</span> -- Benjamin Carlyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
