In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Jory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes
>>> What I was getting at was that the typical wine consumer and the
>>> content providers catering to wine consumers are less interested in the
>>> scientific classification of a particular grape or yeast and more
>>> interested in where to buy wine, who made it, how much it costs, recent
>>> reviews, and so on.
>> You think wine buyers aren't interested in the variety of grape?
>>
>I believe I said scientific classification. Of course wine buyers are
>interested in the grape variety.
The grape variety *is* a scientific classification.
> What they're not interested in is the full biological taxonomy of the
>grape variety which is what you initially suggested.
I did *not* suggest a full biological taxonomy; I suggested a
binominal-variety combination.
And I did, indeed; /suggest/, it; by way of an example; hence my use of
the word "say". It could just as easily be a simple:
<span class="variety">Pinot noir</span>
Either way; it certainly makes more sense to use the same term as
eventually used in "species", than, say, class="grape".
>They're buying wine and not retaking high school biology.
Oh, really?
--
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
