On 9/23/06 10:29 AM, "Scott Reynen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In fact, I'll wager that they do so far more >> than they use 8-digit geo-spatial references, but that doesn't stop us >> using "geo". > > I agree that geo is not currently very widely published on the web, > and if it were suggested as it's own microformat, it probably > wouldn't be adopted. Note from: http://microformats.org/wiki/geo#Examples_in_the_wild # Flickr (http://flickr.com/) now supports the geo microformat (http://blog.flickr.com/flickrblog/2006/08/great_shot_wher.html) on all geotagged photos (http://flickr.com/map/). Within 11 days of launch there are now over 3M+ photos (as of 20060907) marked up with the "geo" microformat. 3+ million pages publish geo data in the geo microformat on the Web. I think "millions" is sufficient to be considered "very widely", and "geo" was written up separate from hCard precisely to exist as its own microformat, and has been adopted. Andy, one thing that might help for the species discussion is if you could cite URLs to a site or sites with millions (or even thousands) of clearly obvious uses of "species" terminology (not just offhanded references like "human being" or "plant") on pages. I'm not saying such examples don't exist, I'm saying we need to explicitly find and cite such examples in order to justify a microformat. As with any microformat, the burden of proof is upon us to come up with such *-examples as Scott has explained. Simply arguing against abstract negatives (paraphrased: "How does such and such community function otherwise?") is a waste of time, because without the documented *-examples, all such arguments are moot. It doesn't matter how many arguments against negatives you think you "win". Absence of negative is not a justification. Thanks, Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
