On 23/10/06, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've yet to
see an example that uses the term binomial as a class name in markup.
I've always used sci, for binominal ands sub-species' names. There has
been some comment here, which I've happily accepted, that that wouldn't
be a good property
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Charles
Roper [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On 23/10/06, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've yet to
see an example that uses the term binomial as a class name in markup.
I've always used sci, for binominal ands sub-species' names. There has
been some comment
On 22/10/06, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm ambivalent; but another taxonomist advised me, in e-mail, to avoid
binomial, as that is also used in mathematics. That seemed sensible to
me.
I'm going to poll a few experts on this. I'll let you know when I get
some feedback.
I'm going to poll a few experts on this. I'll let you know when I get
some feedback.
It's probably more important to poll already published content, to
learn how the market place is already doing it. This is the whole
point of documenting examples, analyzing publishing behaviour, and
only
On Oct 20, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
My full question was:
Why is packet size relevant? The page concerned has many -
and some have dozens - of table rows in similar format.
Maybe I don't understand your question, then. Are you asking why is
packet size important with
On Oct 21, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Charles Roper wrote:
On 21/10/06, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think the intention is that the raw markup of a uF be
human-readable first.
This is a good point; what, exactly, should be human readable
first? I always assumed it was the rendered
On 23/10/06, Benjamin West [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm going to poll a few experts on this. I'll let you know when I get
some feedback.
It's probably more important to poll already published content, to
learn how the market place is already doing it. This is the whole
point of documenting
On Oct 21, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Charles Roper wrote:
Can anyone give any real *disadvantages* to using output compression?
If you do it right, none. Some browsers, like IE 5 and maybe 6, have
problems with compressed, cached JavaScript and other weird edge
cases. However, most HTTP servers
I work with experts in this field and so it's a simple task for me to
ask around.
Neat.
Going back to learning how the market place is doing it, I've yet to
see an example that uses the term binomial as a class name in markup.
If I find an example, I'll post it.
Great, that's exactly what I
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ryan
King [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Oct 20, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
My full question was:
Why is packet size relevant? The page concerned has many -
and some have dozens - of table rows in similar format.
Maybe I don't understand your
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Charles
Roper [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On 22/10/06, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm ambivalent; but another taxonomist advised me, in e-mail, to avoid
binomial, as that is also used in mathematics. That seemed sensible to
me.
I'm going to poll a few
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Charles Roper [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I've yet to
see an example that uses the term binomial as a class name in markup.
I've always used sci, for binominal ands sub-species' names. There has
been some comment here, which I've happily accepted, that that wouldn't
be
On 10/21/06, Charles Roper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone give any real *disadvantages* to using output compression?
The choice to use compression is one of bandwidth vs. processing time.
I have personally had a bad experience with a cut-rate ISP who had
some sort of CPU-usage throttling
On 22/10/06, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
bin (binominal)
Binominal or binomial? A discussion on the subject here:
http://tinyurl.com/tptsh
cname (common name; common used, instead)
Common seems like a very common term. How about vernacular instead?
but
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Charles
Roper [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
bin (binominal)
Binominal or binomial? A discussion on the subject here:
http://tinyurl.com/tptsh
I'm ambivalent; but another taxonomist advised me, in e-mail, to avoid
binomial, as that is also used in
On Oct 19, 2006, at 9:57 PM, Christopher Rines wrote:
In my opinion amount is a really difficult one to abbreviate (or any
measure
for that matter) as it can be used to describe a lot of other things
for
which there is not yet a microformat but cur (for currency) is
interesting
as just off
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Rines
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
And yet we have geo.
I think comparing geo and sci, etc. is not a great example as I think
geo can be thought of as a well known abbreviation.
Yes, it clearly identifies rocks, to geologists ;-)
But seriously, do you
On 21/10/06, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And yet we have geo.
I think comparing geo and sci, etc. is not a great example as I think
geo can be thought of as a well known abbreviation.
Yes, it clearly identifies rocks, to geologists ;-)
But seriously, do you really think it's well
On 21/10/06, Kevin Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the broader point, assuming you use gzip when you care about size,
abbreviations don't save much, especially in the many-repeated case
discussed.
This is one of my primary arguments against using abbreviations. See
my original post:
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Charles
Roper [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Can anyone give any real *disadvantages* to using output compression?
Perhaps not - but is it always available to people? Not everyone manages
(or has access to the management of) the servers on which their content
resides.
I think this has been mentioned before, but I'll mention it again.
From http://microformats.org/wiki/geo:
geo is a 1:1 representation of the geo property in the vCard
standard (RFC2426 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2426.txt)) in XHTML
As you can see, the authors of the spec weren't the ones
On 20/10/06, Brian Suda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- the tricky thing is that there are no namespaces in Microformats,
so if you use cur, sure it is scopped to 'money', but it is now a
'reserved word' for all of microformats. As it was pointed out in a
previous message, then what happens to
On Oct 19, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kevin
Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
In itself, it's not significant, as it is well under a packet
size, as I said, and so will not affect download time.
Why is packet size relevant?
The cost of sending and
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ryan
King [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Oct 19, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
Why is packet size relevant?
The cost of sending and receiving data in TCP/IP is broken up into
fixed costs (ie, things that are constant for every connection or
every packet) and
Scott Reynen wrote:
Who is publishing 10 columns and 100 rows of prices or something
similar? It would be helpful to look at some real-world markup so we
can come up with practical ways to address this concern. If it's in
rows and columns, I would assume each price to be in a td, so span
Mike Schinkel wrote:
Has there been any thought to try and survey the web development community
at large on these types of issues? I could see the value of having a lot of
these types of questions answered if we were do present surveys (of course
hopefully we could find a surveying expert to
...)
-Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles
Roper
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:41 AM
To: Microformats Discuss
Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Size considerations
Scott Reynen wrote:
Who is publishing 10 columns and 100 rows
Andy Mabbett wrote:
Is is considered better to have longer, easier-to-read, more
descriptive, more semantically correct attribute values over shorter,
more concise, bandwidth-saving ones?
Its not the length, its what you do with it ;-)
As in all things, it's a matter of balance.
Yes, I
Okay... Did I just make more work for myself? :)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles
Roper
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:45 AM
To: Microformats Discuss
Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Size considerations
Mike Schinkel wrote:
Has
On Oct 18, 2006, at 6:09 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
That's 399 characters increased to 860 (excluding indentation); over
double.
when gzipped (with indentation) I get 308 bytes vs 498 ration 1.62
Stripping out the indentation and CRs and using more compact forms of
the mf markup I get
tr
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kevin
Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
using more compact forms of the mf markup I get
Other than the 20061103T213000Z format for dates, what did you change?
gzipped I get 293 vs 451 ratio 1.51
So - still an increase of over 50%.
That's not insignificant.
--
Andy
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charles Roper
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I raised the point, as you no doubt know, in response to the Species
brainstorming on the wiki [1]; specifically this:
Should bin, var, cult, etc., be written in full? (I think not, to
save bloating file sizes)
These
On Oct 19, 2006, at 11:58 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kevin
Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
using more compact forms of the mf markup I get
Other than the 20061103T213000Z format for dates, what did you
change?
I removed a redundant 'title'.
gzipped I get 293
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kevin
Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Other than the 20061103T213000Z format for dates, what did you
change?
I removed a redundant 'title'.
You removed the title from:
a href=../solihull/indoor.htm
title=Solihull Branch indoor meetings
On Oct 19, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
In itself, it's not significant, as it is well under a packet size, as
I said, and so will not affect download time.
Why is packet size relevant? The page concerned has many - and some
have
dozens - of table rows in similar format.
Good!
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kevin
Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Good! Do you have before and after versions?
Sadly not - I took the opportunity to re-write and restructure the pages
at the same time as I applied uFs.
I could retroactively manufacture some, but the would just be a number
of
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charles Roper
[EMAIL PROTECTED] in addition to other things said:
Should bin, var, cult, etc., be written in full? (I think not, to
save bloating file sizes)
These abbreviations are absolutely fine within the very narrow domain of
biological nomenclature and
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christopher Rines
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:45 PM
To: microformats-discuss@microformats.org
Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Size considerations (or how to choose
abbreviations)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charles Roper
[EMAIL
Hey Mike,
This is an very good/interesting example...
In my opinion amount is a really difficult one to abbreviate (or any measure
for that matter) as it can be used to describe a lot of other things for
which there is not yet a microformat but cur (for currency) is interesting
as just off the
Given that mF are based on convention, I think it first depends on
what people are discovered to already be doing. In fact, long ago I
argued for renaming hcard to hperson or some other more widely
meaningful class but was shot down owing to the formats foundation in
vcard.
I wasn't necessarily
Should this stuff be in a FAQ or be made into a uF principle page?
On 10/18/06, Charles Roper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is is considered better to have longer, easier-to-read, more
descriptive, more semantically correct attribute values over shorter,
more concise, bandwidth-saving ones?
On
On Oct 18, 2006, at 6:49 AM, Charles Roper wrote:
Is is considered better to have longer, easier-to-read, more
descriptive, more semantically correct attribute values over shorter,
more concise, bandwidth-saving ones?
I consider semantics more important than length. This comes up
enough
Scott Reynen wrote:
I agree with all of this, but I think a more fundamental issue is that
this problem is always presented as a hypothetical, and we shouldn't
spend out time trying to solve hypothetical problems. We know
readability is a problem when someone can't understand something.
18, 2006 2:17 PM
To: Microformats Discuss
Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Size considerations
Scott Reynen wrote:
I agree with all of this, but I think a more fundamental issue is that
this problem is always presented as a hypothetical, and we shouldn't
spend out time trying to solve hypothetical
On Oct 18, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
The following is 6 characters:
$54.97
This is 151 characters (according to MS-Word's stats dialog):
span class=money
span class=symbol title=dollar$/span
abbr class=currency title=USD
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott
Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
It would be helpful to look at some real-world markup so we can come
up with practical ways to address this concern.
I've just posted real markup on the Wiki, to illustrate this very issue,
and had summarily removed and its
On Oct 18, 2006, at 7:16 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
It would be helpful to look at some real-world markup so we can come
up with practical ways to address this concern.
I've just posted real markup on the Wiki
I should have been more clear. I'd like to
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott
Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Oct 18, 2006, at 7:16 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
It would be helpful to look at some real-world markup so we can come
up with practical ways to address this concern.
I've just posted
Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Size considerations
On Oct 18, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
The following is 6 characters:
$54.97
This is 151 characters (according to MS-Word's stats dialog):
span class=money
span class=symbol title=dollar$/span
49 matches
Mail list logo
