On 22/10/06, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All plants are species, and can be scientifically classified as such. Not all species are plants-for-sale, requiring a cultivation regime.
A classic example of one of the differences between plants and species is that of the Potato (Solanum tuberosum). Now, Solanum tuberosum is a species. Most of the potatos you buy in shops are Solanum tuberosum. You may have noticed noticed the numerous types of potato you can buy. These are *varieties*, not species couldn't be accurately marked up within a species uF. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato#Varieties The question is (and this is something Andy and I have been discussing), should the species microformat become a "biota" microformat and cover all aspects of naming living things, including varieties (in the case of potatos, for instance) and breeds (cats and dogs, for instance)? What do others think?
>Finally, I will breifly mention that several of the examples I looked >at (chosen by random clicking) closely resembled the behaviour of >tagging, to me. Perhaps it would be easier and more effective to >co-opt this behaviour somehow. Perhaps you could explain how you think it resembles such behaviour, how that might be "co-opted", and the advantages, over the proposed uF, that that might bring? And how it might be applied the vast number of species listings which are not links?
Tagging as opposed to what? I thought microformats were all about tagging? In other words, marking up content using (enriched) tags. Ben, so I can get a better handle on what your concern is, could you define "tagging".
>I'm sure the page would benefit from several people pitching in. Seconded.
Thirded. :) Ben, thanks for taking the time to work on this, your input is appreciated. Cheers, Charles _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
