>> I'm not Tantek, but you're use-case seems eminently reasonable, and
Thanks! >> I'd suggest could be solved using an appropriate new [EMAIL PROTECTED], and >> then convicing the search engines to pay attention to it ;-) Do you mean in <head>? Did you see my earlier comments about wikis, CMS, and forums, where the user often may not have control of putting things in <head>? >> It's very hard to follow the Microformats principle of 'pave the cowpaths' if the information you're trying to enrich isn't currently present in the documents, which means hidden data is fairly heavily discouraged. I understand. Personally, I have need for it in a project I'm planning and will use it in my project. Although I really don't want to say this because it sounds so un-humble, but if my project achieves my vision which I think it can, it will be significant enough by itself to drive interest in the conventions it uses. I can do two things; implement it and probably get it wrong because I'd not have the benefit of feedback from the so many skilled people involved in Microformats, or include in the Microformats process and get the feedback to make it (and others) the best they can be. >> However, it doesn't really fit in with the aims of Microformats with a big 'M', which are "Designed for humans first and machines second" Here's just a question: Is it possible to interpret that to mean "When there is a conflict, design for humans trumps design for machines?" If so, that doesn't *preclude* designing for machines where there isn't a conflict with humans, right? Just another way to look at it...? >> Again, that's not to say it's not a good idea, it's something I'd be quite interested in too. And there are several more where that one came from. :) Maybe if Tantek vetos you can help me go create yet another initiative for "hidden Microformat-like metadata?" :-) -Mike -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ciaran McNulty Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 4:26 AM To: Microformats Discuss Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Visible Data...a Microformat requirement? On 10/23/06, Mike Schinkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, what if your take on this problem and use-case? I'm not Tantek, but you're use-case seems eminently reasonable, and I'd suggest could be solved using an appropriate new [EMAIL PROTECTED], and then convicing the search engines to pay attention to it ;-) However, it doesn't really fit in with the aims of Microformats with a big 'M', which are "Designed for humans first and machines second" [1]. The scope of what's considered a Microformat is deliberately narrow, and is primarily aimed at adding extra semantics to data that's already present in documents. XFN, for instance, defines a set of @rel values to enrich the semantics of linking to other people's sites/blogs/etc., but it's unlikely that XFN would have been proposed if there wasn't already a huge precendent of people linking to each other's sites, and a percieved need for that extra information to be added to the existing links. It's very hard to follow the Microformats principle of 'pave the cowpaths' if the information you're trying to enrich isn't currently present in the documents, which means hidden data is fairly heavily discouraged. Again, that's not to say it's not a good idea, it's something I'd be quite interested in too. -Ciaran McNulty [1] http://microformats.org/about/ _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss