On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 10:39 -0500, Chris Messina wrote: > My example really wasn't meant to illustrate anything about that one > particular type of phrase... instead it was a weak attempt to show > that categories are not consistently semantically useful equivalents > of tags. For perhaps a better real-world example, I have a category on > my site called "Asides". Now if my posts to that category were only > tagged with "Asides" (as they actually currently are), how on earth > would anyone find that content? And because they're short, concise > little posts, I don't really want them littering my other category > listings (ignoring the obvious hack to exclude that category from > other listings).
Perhaps this is indicating that "Asides" is a separate feed (ala hAtom) with its own categorisation requirements? -- Benjamin Carlyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
