RE: hidden versus discoverable meta-data

Shelley Powers wrote:
> I'm not going to get into the semantics of what this type of data is
> called, but @summary joins a host of other data, including
> microformats, RDFa, data-*, and so on in the fact that they don't have
> a default visual display attached. Factually, though, they aren't
> "hidden", in that other tools can see the data, as we can ourselves,
> just using view source.

...or in properly constructed editing environments.  It's a UI tool
problem, not a user problem or implementation problem.  

In fact, should we want to take this further, it could be argued that
'accesskeys' are hidden meta-data too, thus should be considered a
hindrance or barrier and removed from the spec. (and to be clear, I am not
currently advocating that - in fact I've been turned around on
accesskeys). Tab, don't let your eyes and vision be your disability, start
thinking outside of the box a little.

> Regardless, I'm not sure that it matters, except for the fact that
> there's been an unwarranted assumption expressed too frequently in
> these emails that problems will occur if an element or attribute
> doesn't have a default  browser display.
> There's never been any proof to support such an assumption--only a
> hypothesis presented, without any real and tangible way to prove, or
> disprove, the hypothesis.
> I don't think there's any wrong with stating an opinion. But I think
> it's important that we state opinions as such, rather than as some
> form of nebulous unproven "fact".
> If we acknowledge our opinions as such, perhaps our communications
> with each other can progress in a positive manner. And we won't
> necessarily care what adjectives we attach to  @summary, microformats,
> RDFa, et al.
> I don't want to hinder this discussion, but I think we need to be
> careful about expressing opinion as proven fact.

Thank you Shelley for a more metered response than the one that was
brewing in my head.

What she said!


Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 18:53:12 UTC