On 5/6/07, Scott Reynen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
I'd agree. rel-nofollow was a misguided abuse of HTML. Such is the
power of large search engines creating HTML conventions for the
benefit of their bottom lines.
I think if you go back to the name... we're not talking about
"micropatterns" (though I've used that for designer-friendly HTML
patterns) but "microformats" -- specifically an alternative to data
formats like RSS, ATOM, vcard and ical. You can certainly have
semantic conventions but semantic conventions alone do not a
microformat make.
Chris
--
Chris Messina
Citizen Provocateur &
Open Source Ambassador-at-Large
Work: http://citizenagency.com
Blog: http://factoryjoe.com/blog
Cell: 412 225-1051
Skype: factoryjoe
This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
