Re: [uf-discuss] More responses to slashdot comments
On 7/13/06, Sho Kuwamoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exactly my point. There are two competing schema living in the same document: the world of HTML (semantically poor and unextensible), and the world of microformats. While this works out OK usually, I believe there are cases where the two worlds combine in uncomfortable ways. There have to be two types of schema because there are, as you rightly said, two orthogonal sets of semantics in HTML. The first is the tag/attribute based semantics, which are very strictly defined by the W3C spec. These are mainly to do with document structure and so on, and everyone understands what they mean. The second set of semantics are class/id based, and are completely 'unregulated', that is to say the specific meanings aren't specified by the HTML spec. If I want @id=shopping-list then there's no reason I shouldn't mark my pages up that way, and there's some semantic value in doing so over something like @id=centre-column. Microformats form conventions for how the *both* sets of semantics should be used. Microformats will, by preference, use the first set as far as possible (i.e. using ADDR in hCard) and then define sensible semantic ids/classes for stuff that isn't covered. Microformats differ from schemas like the W3C's HTML spec, because pages don't have a mechanism for declaring that they conform to a specific microformat. I don't think this is so much a weakness as a strength! Take @rel=tag for instance. The microformat for this declares very specifically what semantics we can read from the relationship between the current page and the URL being linked. However, there's nothing to stop someone who's never heard of microformats deciding to use @rel=tag on one of their pages, because it seems a sensible value to use, and you can't tell my looking at a page whether the author had the microformat in mind or not. I believe that the strength of microformats is that they are always sensible markup, so it doesn't matter if someone knows about the microformat being used or not, the markup still makes sense to them - if I'm looking at a link and see @rel=tag in there then that's not cryptic - I can understand what the link is saying even if I haven't heard of the microformat. The converse of this is that if I build a parser that understands @rel=tag into my search engine, then I have a spec that tells me a sensible way to parse and understand the semantics of the link. When my search engine finds the hypothetical page above, that uses @rel=tag without knowing the microformat, then because the spec defines a sensible way of parsing it, my search engine will have a good chance of correctly understanding what the link relationship means. -Ciaran ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] More responses to slashdot comments
On Jul 12, 2006, at 5:49 PM, John Allsopp wrote: Tantek (and others) As I have too much time on my hands :-) Another draft response to some /. comments [SDC=Slashdot comment, MFR=Micrformats response] SDC: Mixing presentation and data - good... bad... good. But it gets better a little, each time (maybe more of a spiral than a wheel). SDC: Ok, so this microformats thing is about encoding extra data inside an HTML file by abusing CSS class names for markup, isn't that completly unnecessary and nothing more than an ugly hack? FWIW: I wrote a blog post about this: http://microformats.org/blog/ 2005/10/19/more-than-styling/ -ryan ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
RE: [uf-discuss] More responses to slashdot comments
While I agree that the use of the class attribute in microformats is consistent with the intended use (i.e., to embed semantic information into HTML), I think there are some subtle gotchas to consider. My recollection is that when span and class were introduced, there were a lot of people who had some unease with the very existence of class, span and div, because it adds an orthogonal layer of semantics onto HTML. For example, what is the difference between: a) This is an ememphasized/em point vs. b) This is an span class=emphaticemphasized/span point Presumably, (a) would be preferred over (b), although I personally prefer (b). (I think strong and em are copouts, but that's a whole other story). It gets even more confusing when you mix tags and classes more aggressively. Example A: -- div class=hreview spanspan class=rating5/span out of 5 stars/span h4 class=summaryCrepes on Cole is awesome/h4 ... /div Is the h4 the structure that defines the semantics of the document, or is the summary class the structure that defines the semantics? In other words, why not do this: Example B: -- div class=hreview spanspan class=rating5/span out of 5 stars/span span class=summaryCrepes on Cole is awesome/span ... /div Ostensibly, the reason for preferring example A over example B is that there are two systems of semantics for two different reasons. The HTML view of the document says that the header is an h4. The microformats view of the document says it's a summary. Example A allows both views of the document to live together. What's the problem with this? Well, you'll notice that the HTML document has become polluted by the div and span tags. Are the span and div tags part of the HTML semantics, or are they just scaffolding to hold the microformat information? In other words, should we ignore the span and div tags when interpreting our document as HTML? This is essentially the same issue that people have with hacks like adding div class=topleft into a document, which is clearly presentational. While the microformat tags are not presentational, they are a different, orthogonal set of semantics that is being embedded into the document, which can make it hard to know how to interpret the semantics of the HTML tags. Anyway, I think the above arguments are not a reason to discount microformats -- the benefits outweigh the costs. But I do think there is a valid point to consider here, which is that mashing two (or more) systems of semantics together comes at a cost. -Sho -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Allsopp Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 5:50 PM To: microformats-discuss@microformats.org Subject: [uf-discuss] More responses to slashdot comments Tantek (and others) As I have too much time on my hands :-) Another draft response to some /. comments [SDC=Slashdot comment, MFR=Micrformats response] SDC: Mixing presentation and data - good... bad... good. But it gets better a little, each time (maybe more of a spiral than a wheel). SDC: Ok, so this microformats thing is about encoding extra data inside an HTML file by abusing CSS class names for markup, isn't that completly unnecessary and nothing more than an ugly hack? MFR: Several slashdot comments carry in essence the same criticism as these - that microfomats, abuse the class attribute, and by doing so mix presentation with document structure. This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the class attribute of HTML. The class attribute is very commonly used by web designers in conjunction with CSS to style pages (which is one of the roles outlined for it in the HTML specification [1]), and in truth, it is often overused in this way. But despite that, class, according to the HTML specification has several roles in HTML, including for general purpose processing by user agents [1]. Microformats make use of this second aspect of the class (and id) attribute, and do so legitimately. It is not an abuse of the class or id attribute to use it to add semantic context to a document. Nor is the use of class in and of itself presentational - in fact, it is an important mechanism for separating presentation from structured content. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.5.2 john John Allsopp style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher WebPatterns :: http://webpatterns.org Web Directions Conference :: Sydney September 28-29 :: http://wd06.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
RE: [uf-discuss] More responses to slashdot comments
Michael Leikam wrote: spans and h4s are not structurally equivalent. span and div tags are general structural markup, while heading tags are specifically defined in relation to other heading tags. Collectively they define an outline for the page, while the set of spans on a page defines nothing. Exactly my point. There are two competing schema living in the same document: the world of HTML (semantically poor and unextensible), and the world of microformats. While this works out OK usually, I believe there are cases where the two worlds combine in uncomfortable ways. BTW, I don't know if saying that spans define nothing in the HTML world fits with my view of the things. To me, spans and divs in HTML are an escape mechanism that allows me to add my own meaning above and beyond what HTML provides. For example, I might have an appendix section, which I think of as containing other elements, such as h3, etc. This is essentially the same issue that people have with hacks like adding div class=topleft into a document, which is clearly presentational. That may be an unfortunate choice of class name, but one of the uses of class names is as a style sheet selector[1] so I hardly see that as a hack. Web pages have an inherent presentational aspect and coding specifically to address that isn't something to discourage. Well, I guess my viewpoint is that adding span tags with classes into your HTML purely for the sake of having a place for CSS to attach itself is, in a way, adding presentation to your document. In an ideal world, the divs and spans would be added to your document to represent structure, and CSS would be applied later to make it look right. For example, I might have a page that has four sections: mainNav, adSection, links, and main. Creating divs for these sections seems fine. I'm just marking out parts of my document that have meaning. Depending on the look I wanted to achieve, I might find myself needing to surround, say, the first three divs by another div (let's call it leftColumn because there is no semantic relationship between these three sections). That, to me, feels like adding markup to your document for the sake of presentation. Anyway, getting back to my earlier point... I think the pros of microformats outweigh the cons, so I'm not arguing against microformats. I'm just saying that when people look at all the spans and divs with classes on them and wonder if that will complicate things... well... I think it's a fair point. It probably does slightly complicate things. -Sho ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] More responses to slashdot comments
On Jul 13, 2006, at 3:17 PM, Sho Kuwamoto wrote: Depending on the look I wanted to achieve, I might find myself needing to surround, say, the first three divs by another div (let's call it leftColumn because there is no semantic relationship between these three sections). Why isn't leftColumn a semantic relationship? It means something, doesn't it? There's no reason a bunch of designers couldn't get together and agree on what leftColumn means just like the W3C agreed on what h1 means, and the microformats community agreed on what vevent means. Until someone find a babblefish, that shared meaning is all we have to communicate. That's as semantic as it gets. Peace, Scott ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
