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.c
om
____________________________________________________________
__
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
microformats-discuss microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss
|
