In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charles Roper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> The straw-man is based, I >believe, not on existing markup practice but on the ideal way of doing >things (as judged by Andy) based on existing, well founded, >terminology used in biology. Partially that. Firstly, it's not just my judgement, but a combination of that and advice received from others (including you!). Secondly, it reflects both the well-founds AND STRICTLY SPECIFIED terminology used; plus the hierarchical data published on many of the sites cited, for example: <http://names.ubio.org/browser/classifications.php?conceptID=2463046> I think it might be worth stating that there are, perhaps, three types of publisher of taxonomic information (with all the usual overlaps and exceptions one finds when generalising so much!): [1] Those which publish a full or partial hierarchy, like the above. [2] Those which publish a binominal, or a binominal with a qualifier, like a subspecies, variety, breed, hybridisation - but still referring to a single type of living thing, with no higher- level taxonomy. [3] These which publish common names, but would be interested in "aliening" those to the equivalent binominal (etc., as in [2] Interestingly, some sites (Wikipedia, for example) have pages which fall into each of the three categories! I'll add those categories to the 'wiki'. -- Andy Mabbett Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/> Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk> _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
