On May 6, 2007, at 9:32 AM, Keith Alexander wrote:
Indeed, there are already microformats, such as "nofollow", which we
recognise as such, but which do not appear to have followed that
process.
Given that, I'd perhaps redefine a 'Microformat' as an HTML
convention (can something like 'nofollow' be called a 'data
format'?) endorsed by the Microformats community.
(I've never much liked rel-nofollow, so I'm largely biased when I say
this:) I think it would be a mistake to redefine microformats such
that rel-nofollow doesn't stand out. The open issues in rel-nofollow
[1] strongly suggest it's not really a microformat at all. The
issues are, basically: 1) the semantics are wrong, 2) the name is
wrong, 3) it doesn't solve a real problem, and 4) it creates new
problems. I'd say that makes it almost the antithesis of a microformat.
[1] http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-nofollow#open_issues
Peace,
Scott
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
