Array

On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 02:43:30PM -0400, Seth Hanford
wrote:
> Instead of spending time finding and implementing new
hashes, the
> infrastructure need only check all the hashes instead
of just SHA1 (or
> two of the three, even) & size. Looking through
ports(7) and
> bsd.port.mk(5), I didn't find such an option, but it
may already exist.

It does check all three.

Joerg

Ted Drake wrote:
> I like the idea of hproduct. Product id's will be
messy. Do we use skus?
> Isbn? Proprietary ids?  For the average user, I think
sku and isbn would be
> useful enough to be relevant. It would be nice to have
an optional attribute
> to describe the naming scheme. For example: 
> <li class="prodid
sku">123455678</li>
>   
This was a VERY long thread about UIDs, ISBNs, and
referencing "objects"
http://microformats.org/discuss/
mail/microformats-discuss/2006-April/003805.html

Given that the citation microformat will handle all the
information
about how to reference and identify a book, article, etc.
Most of that
can easily be extracted and reused to reference a DVD,
computer,
anything with an identifier.

-brian
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

In message <a0623092dc1a999b08d65[192.168.1.26]>, Angus
McIntyre
<anguspobox.com> writes

> a combination of a microformat-endorsed marking
convention and
>something like Andy Mabbett's proposed UNAPI <http://unapi.info/>
might
>be a solution here.

That's not my proposal; just something I attempted to
document here, for
the benefit of the community.

I neither endorse nor disapprove of it.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
            *  Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: 
<http://www.no2id.net/>
            *  Free Our Data:  <http://www.freeourd
ata.org.uk>
            *  Are you using Microformats, yet: <http://microformats.org/
> ?
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

Angus McIntyre wrote:
> The existing invisible microformats relate to
information 
> that is (a) never visible and (b) is harder to abuse
this 
> way. (Those are distinct points: there is abusable
invisible 
> information, as shown by the fact that Google doesn't
index 
> META keywords and descriptions).

I wasn't considering that point, so thanks for mentioning it
to consider.
OTOH, there are an extrodinary number of use-cases where the
semantic markup
with be used between known and trusted entities where the
aggregator has a
list of known domain names to crawl, and in that case it's
not an issue; for
example: distributors and their vendors.

> #2 would be to launch a distinct initiative (with its
own 
> site, wiki, mailing list, and line of endearing plush
toys) 
> to define non-visible things-that-are-like-microformats
for 
> those who want to take the risk of incurring the wrath
of 
> Google, accompanied by the clear caveat that "this
stuff can 
> get you banned from every decent search engine".

That's my plan. 

> If that's not an 
> obstacle, a combination of a microformat-endorsed
marking 
> convention and something like Andy Mabbett's proposed
UNAPI 
> <http://unapi.info/>
might be a solution here.

I've read the site but still haven't understood what unapi
is trying to
accomplish.

> It would seem to me that #4 and #5 might be worth
considering 
> in the context of microformats; #2 and #3 probably
wouldn't 
> be (but that doesn't mean that they're not worth
considering 
> in their own right, somewhere else).

Well, I'm going to try #2 anyway. 
I think it will be the easiest way. 

-- 
-Mike Schinkel
http://www.mikesch
inkel.com/blogs/
http://www.welldesig
nedurls.org/


_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

Le 16 déc. 2006 à 22:24, Angus McIntyre a écrit :
>  (Those are distinct points: there is abusable
invisible  
> information, as shown by the fact that Google doesn't
index META  
> keywords and descriptions).

Just FYI.
Spotlight on the macintosh indexes those and it. is. very.
practical.  
when you search information.

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/Peop
le/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***




_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

At 14:39 +0900 18.12.2006, Karl Dubost wrote:
>Le 16 déc. 2006 à 22:24, Angus McIntyre a écrit :
>>   (Those are distinct points: there is abusable
invisible information,
>>  as shown by the fact that Google doesn't index
META keywords
>>  and descriptions).
>
>Spotlight on the macintosh indexes those and it. is.
very. practical.
>when you search information.

I didn't mean to say that they weren't still 
useful. I use META keywords myself to pre-fill 
the 'tags' field on the submit form for an 
anti-social bookmarking tool that I wrote (an 
anti-social bookmarking tool is one where you 
don't share your bookmarks with anyone else) and 
I know others do the same. Google will even use 
the META description (where available and more 
than a certain number of characters long) as the 
description for each entry in their index. So 
it's definitely a good idea to make sure that 
both those are properly filled out.

Google just doesn't - as far as I know - use 
either the keywords or the description in order 
to decide how to index the page, because of the 
problem of keyword stuffing.

Angus

_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

Am Mittwoch, 20. Dezember 2006 14:02 schrieb Angus McIntyre:

> Which raises the whole question for me with XFN, which
is a practical
> one, rather than a technical one: do we really want the
world to know
> all that stuff about us? I keep finding myself torn
between the
> desire to implement XFN just because it's such a cool
idea, and the
> feeling that 'No, the world does not need a traversable
graph of all
> my relationships'. 

I personally think that there is exactly one XFN attribute
value, which is 
very useful: "me". I won't put any other on the
internet.

But indeed that is personally my own decision. The idea of
XFN is cool, 
although far from beeing complete.

regards
Siegfried
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

Angus McIntyre wrote:
> Google just doesn't - as far as I know - use either the

> keywords or the description in order to decide how to
index 
> the page, because of the problem of keyword stuffing.

Some invisible metadata can be potentially abused by
spammers, but not all.
It depends on the nature of the metadata.

-- 
-Mike Schinkel
http://www.mikesch
inkel.com/blogs/
http://www.welldesig
nedurls.org/



_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss