Angus McIntyre wrote: > The existing invisible microformats relate to information > that is (a) never visible and (b) is harder to abuse this > way. (Those are distinct points: there is abusable invisible > information, as shown by the fact that Google doesn't index > META keywords and descriptions).
I wasn't considering that point, so thanks for mentioning it to consider. OTOH, there are an extrodinary number of use-cases where the semantic markup with be used between known and trusted entities where the aggregator has a list of known domain names to crawl, and in that case it's not an issue; for example: distributors and their vendors. > #2 would be to launch a distinct initiative (with its own > site, wiki, mailing list, and line of endearing plush toys) > to define non-visible things-that-are-like-microformats for > those who want to take the risk of incurring the wrath of > Google, accompanied by the clear caveat that "this stuff can > get you banned from every decent search engine". That's my plan. > If that's not an > obstacle, a combination of a microformat-endorsed marking > convention and something like Andy Mabbett's proposed UNAPI > <http://unapi.info/> might be a solution here. I've read the site but still haven't understood what unapi is trying to accomplish. > It would seem to me that #4 and #5 might be worth considering > in the context of microformats; #2 and #3 probably wouldn't > be (but that doesn't mean that they're not worth considering > in their own right, somewhere else). Well, I'm going to try #2 anyway. :) I think it will be the easiest way. -- -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org/ _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
