On 21/10/06, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And yet we have "geo".
>
>I think comparing geo and sci, etc. is not a great example as I think
>geo can be thought of as a well known abbreviation.
Yes, it clearly identifies rocks, to geologists ;-)
But seriously, do you really think it's well known, outside of the "web
2.0" community?
I might poll some people round the office (where most people's
primiary interests biology, conservation and ecology) and see what
they think. I'm going to make a guess that they'll say "geography" or
"geographical".
>As microformats are human-readable first I think size is a secondary
>consideration.
I don't think the intention is that the raw markup of a uF be
"human-readable first".
This is a good point; what, exactly, should be "human readable first?"
I always assumed it was the rendered output of the HTML, rather than
the markup itself. Is this correct?
Charles
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
