On 10/23/06 12:11 AM, "Mike Schinkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> If it is not worth or appropriate to make the information visible, then >>> it is not worth trusting the information and certainly not worth the time to >>> make a microformat for it. > > But what if the website publisher (or graphic designer) does not want that > information to be visible on the page? Then it is not worth trusting the information nor worth the time making a microformat for it. > Some may, but other's may not. I'm > trying to follow the principle that Microformats should not require the user > to really "change" anything beyond adding Microformat functionality. That's right. > If they don't currently display this metadata, are you saying that a > Microformat should force them to do so? No, I am saying that the microformat shouldn't bother representing it. Keep microformats as simple and as minimal as possible. That means invisible data and properties are left out of microformats. >>> Have you tried using as many existing microformats as you can on your >>> current sites? > > Ohhhh Yeah! I've been combing through even Microformat you have listed and > reading each in-depth. Sad to say, but I've probaby got more than twice as > many in mind as you currently have listed... It doesn't matter how many you may have in mind. The question remains - have you tried using *just* the existing microformats to at least add some more semantics to your pages? > But I don't want to propose > anything until I've got time to flesh them out otherwise I'll be in a > bloodbath of trying to justify them before I've done all the required > research. By using existing microformats first, you will better understand what may need to be created. Postpone proposing any microformats until you have first made use of existing ones. Thanks, Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
