On 3/30/06, Tim White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I understand the desire to capture "type" metadata - I wanted to > include it for the longest time. But - from a microformats point of > view - we have to keep two things in mind: > > 1) Humans first, machines second.
At what point does this become mere dogma? It sounds like what you're advocating in fact suggests "human first, who cares about machines"; as if the one can't support the other in any case. I once held a position that typing introduced more problems than it solved, but I've changed my mind. If we were to vote on this, I'd give a big +1 to including typing information. > This means keeping everything visible, not trapped in metadata. If you > really want to note that it's a photo then include that: > > <cite>Photo <span class="title">Siesta Lake</span> by <span class="fn > photography">Ansel Adams</span>.</cite> Why not use CSS to style types in particular ways, or otherwise provide more sublte cues? > 2) "Adapted to current behaviors and usage patterns." > Microformats are suppose to be modeled on what people are currently > doing (80/20) on the web. I think of it in terms of the Everyman/woman. "Everyman/woman" has no idea what microformats are. > I think things like marc records, OpenURL, Bibtex, etc. are actually > *too* specific for MF. ??? I see it quite the other way around of course. If you just want something some generic weblog author can use to markup a book, and you reject the idea of doing something more, then I have no interest in this discussion I'm afraid; you'd be designing for a narrow community. The examples that Alf and Mike posted are perfectably reasonable compromises between simplicity and expressiveness. Bruce _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss