Scott Reynen wrote:
Microformats are built around an assumption of visibility, so if a publisher doesn't want something visible, they probably don't want microformats. It's tempting to argue about the virtues of visibility, but I think it's ultimately a waste of everyone's time. For those of us who value visible data, there's no shortage already out there waiting to have microformats applied. And for those of us who value invisible data, there are other formats better suited to that than microformats.
Spare me the high and mighty rhetoric. By your reasoning, sites like Flickr, which hide geo data by default from the eyes of normal users, are breaking your holy tenets and should therefore not use microformats?
Please... 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 [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
