Al Gilman wrote:
If the machineable info is not routinely passing through the consciousness of the communicating principals (that is, people),
Who may, without the machine-mediated interpretation, not actually be able to make a qualitative judgement (e.g. if I see a geo lat/long value , I'm not enough of a walking map to instantly be able to review that data...so I will need to run it through something like google maps to work out if the data is duff or not)...
If in some community of communication, the data is routinely extracted into view often enough so that bad data tend to get weeded out, then the storage or transmission form doesn't have to be directly comprehensible by people. But one of the virtues of markup languages is just how much of the info is directly under the quality control of people; expressed in as little-encoded form as can be gotten away with.
But to bring it back to the original argument, the routine extraction does not necessarily have to equate to data visible in, say, a tooltip. The routine extraction may well be mediated via some machine interpretation.
P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ______________________________________________________________ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
