Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: Visible MetaData == "Visible to whom?" was Re: Design Principles

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> And with <a>, content authors would not have to wait for *any* tools 
> to provide additional support, even non-browser tools, since users 
> would be able to see and click on the feed link.
1.) Not all metadata utilizes the semantics of <a>; some need more and 
some need different.
2.) Authors may not want some links to be visible
> I don't think this is relevant to the claim at hand. We're talking 
> about two different existing extensible mechanisms that are already 
> understood by browsers. The difference is that one of them had a 
> visible end-user effect without the need for new browser features.
You are arguing for Microformats, right?  Have you not seen how 
non-scalable and prone to ambiguity the Microformat initiative has 
become?  Metadata is really not very useful if its can't be 
disambiguated and if its  semantics can't be reasonably trusted. 

I do think something similar to Microformats would be valuable, but I 
think the Microformat community has been somewhat misdirected regarding 
disambiguation and scalability of involvement.
> Thus, visible metadata reduces the need for browser involvement in web 
> innovation.
But the converse is not true, i.e. it is not true that invisible 
metadata requires browser involvement for web innovation. 

You've been arguing this point for several messages, but you've not yet 
to acknowledge and support or object to the point I've been making. My 
point is that there are places where metadata being visible is not 
appropriate and in those cases invisible metadata is okay except where 
it can easily be misused by spammers.

-Mike Schinkel -

Received on Thursday, 29 March 2007 20:50:34 UTC