- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 23:25:27 -0700
- To: mikeschinkel@gmail.com
- Cc: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Mar 27, 2007, at 4:54 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote: > > Murray Maloney wrote: >> [[ >> VisibleMetadata: Metadata is more effective when it is directly >> tied to user-visible deta. Invisible metadata is often incorrect, >> out of date, or intentionally deceptive. For example, <a> is more >> trustworthy as a cross-reference than <link>. User-visible tags >> are more trustworthy than <meta> kewords. >> ]] >> >> The first two statements are assertions that are true when they >> are true and not when they are not. >> Thus, I do not agree with these statements as a premise for a >> design principle. >> I cannot agree with the example at all. I have used <link> to >> great effect and have depended on it. >> Also, <meta> has its place. >> >> That's not to say that I don't feel some sympathy for what you are >> trying to say here, >> it's just that I can't agree with this design principle as written. > I strongly agree with Murray on this. There are many reasons for > visible metadata. One such reason is an open-source project that I > am working on called T.oolicio.us whose goal is to provide tangible > and visible benefit for invisible metadata. Without the ability to > add invisible metadata, we will hobble an entire class of web > improvements. Do you think that invisible metadata is generally preferable to the visible kind? No better or worse? Or is visible metadata often better? Keep in mind these principles are guidelines and few are absolutely inviolate. I think it would be hard to argue that invisible metadata is preferable, or even equally good. Companies that make a business out of organizing information on the web do not generally give weight to information that isn't presented to the user. I don't think your anecdote outweighs this evidence. Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2007 06:25:48 UTC