Scott Reynen wrote: > In general: hiding elements only hides them from humans, and > leaves the content more accessible for machines than humans. > Microformats are for humans first. For publishers: hidden > elements are less likely to be kept up-to-date.
Counterpoint: For data generated from a database where the data is visible elsewhere, this becomes a specious argument. Scott Reynen wrote: > For parsers: > hidden elements are more likely to contain spam. John Allsopp wrote: > I think the fate of the meta element (unused by any search > engine) pretty much demonstrates the difficult with invisible > meta data Counterpoint: These are specious arguments in the context of metadata that is more tightly constrained and of the type that would provide spammers little or no benefit. For example, I am not aware of spammers using <LINK> elements yet <LINK> elements are invisible metadata that are used appropriately on the web today. It really makes more sense to look at the use-case rather than to issue a blanket edit of prohibition. FWIW. -- -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org/ "It never ceases to amaze how many people will proactively debate away attempts to improve the web..." _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss