Knowledge:Requests for comment/Microformats

44:

reader, and moving forward with care. In general people felt that microformats had a place on Knowledge, and there were no views calling for an outright exclusion, though caution was expressed, and in particular OrangeDog, endorsed by 18 others, felt there were a number of problems with the current practices. SarekOfVulcan's view that in general microformats are good gained 11 endorsements. Other views also supported microformats, though with an eye on documentation, care and consideration. Xeno's view that microformats are as-yet-unproven technology, so the benefits of using a microformat in a specific template should be discussed before implementation, and existing microformats that provide no clear benefit should be stripped, gained 17 endorsements. Nihiltres produced a set of principles that was endorsed by 12 users. It can be concluded that there is a consensus in favour of providing guidelines for the examination of appropriate use and deployment of microformats.

3202:

machines, because they don't get the text otherwise. And the machines can then indirectly make such information useful for readers. So, yes, it is even useful to humen, even if not directly. Which definitely is a valid point are the technical aspects. But simply removing doesn't make it better. We need to find a technical way of easing the wiki and HTML source, rather than removing useful microformats. It may be that they're not yet widely used, but that's also no reason not to use them. Knowledge has somewhat of an "idol function" in the WWW. If Knowledge starts doing stuff, others will do it, too. It's not required for us that other sites take the first step, we can do that ourselves. So, let's work on improving the problems with it and not removing useful stuff.

1263:

conflict between microformats if applicable. If we choose one microformat over others, we should be looking for ones which are a) in real use outside Knowledge, b) adaptable for our purposes, and c) not overly specific to particular entities, particularly non-free software. By (c) I mean the obvious case that were a company to approach Knowledge asking for us to mark up product entries with their product codes, we would rightly reject that microformat as overly-specific. There is one exception that I find appealing, which is codes for reference media, à la

2800:

both sides; in the light of the WikiMeadia Foundation's expressed desire to make our content machine readable. I'm happy to answer any further questions and trust that those who have already made endorsements, without reading both sides of the debate, will revise their views accordingly. Details of other microformat tools and implementations; and further refutations of the common misapprehensions addressed above, and others, plus specifications, examples, and more general information, is available on the

1190:

but it would be surprising to me if microformats didn't contribute to it. But 4 is probably the most important point. There have been edit wars for including infoboxes just for the sake of microformats, and I believe there have also been edit wars for removing relevant information from infoboxes because, while perfectly clear to human readers, it was somehow wrong in a microformat context. That's not acceptable. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a database.

2235:, and more, including data-transfer formats such as vCard and iCal (the new vCard specification, vCard4, includes additional features based on what has been done with microformats on Knowledge). It can be mapped, charted, aggregated and searched. Once some feature enhancements are made to MediaWiki, it will also be possible to extract our audio (spoken articles, etc.) as a 2088:

are well enough defined to be worth adding now and updating how it's used as time passes). As such it makes very good sense to support them if it's not disruptive. If the status quo of microformat standards changes over time before settling down, an ideal set of templates and markup would be easy to update by bot or by central template edit.

2197:). Once meaning is imparted, then our data can be reused by anyone, either directly (by coding parsers) or indirectly (by using one of many browser plug-ins, third-party tools etc.) or, potentially, by using tools added to Knowledge's own codebase, perhaps utilising one of the many free microformat-parsing code libraries available. 1006:. Don't make me have to add arcane template tags to the article text; have a separate edit area with the entries, like "Place of birth" and a text entry box next to it, etc. Have a standardized set of entries for each type of article. Until there is a separation between content entry and metadata entry, it should not be used. -- 1574:"eminently reasonable" view. I trust that Xeno will now close this unhelpful and factional RfC accordingly. I further note that all edits relating to microformats always have been and remain subject to the usual checks an balances (consensus, BRD, etc.) for Knowledge edits, "as with any other change to Knowledge". 2147:, about "making some of the data on Knowledge's 15 million (and counting) articles understandable to computers as well as humans". Note, in particular, the part about "allow software to know, for example, that the numbers shown in one of the columns in this table listing U.S. presidents are dates". That's 1959:

All in all, I'm a fan, but I also think that we have given enough space for this largely still unproven technology to experiment in our encyclopedia. It's time to analyze, develop and adapt for the proponents of this technology. It is clear to me that this cannot be the definitive implementation. I'm

1943:

I'm not really in favor of these formats for anything but infoboxes and refs atm. There are 2 reasons for this. First, the infoboxes/refs are already 'complicated', but we should strive to make content LESS complicated, and making infoboxes and refs more efficient. Second, the more changes we make in

716:

To me it looks like these microformats involve a hyperproliferation of classes, and that unless we set a strong standard for documentation, we're could end up at a spot where only a tiny fraction of the people who currently fool with templates will be able to fully understand the new system. I think

43:

The desired outcome of finding a clear consensus to either embrace or disfavour microformats has not quite been reached; however there is clear support for looking at the use of microformats on a case by case basis, with an emphasis on examining the benefits that microformats can bring to the general

2548:

was 1814 KB; The microformat in it comprises just 110 characters of the emitted HTML code (~0.005% of the full download). That's not as many as in the preceding sentence. There is no microformat-specific HTML or Wikicode on the edit view; it's all handled by pre-existing templates (e.g. the infobox,

2087:

The problem seems to be that microformats are in an ideal case, harmless and likely to be a significant future data source ancillary to many articles. (Even if microformats die, some kind of embedded data will probably be used and typical kinds of data for a song, town, or many other kinds of topic,

1522:

A general discussion or policy about whether to use or not to use microformats as a matter of principle is therefore not very helpful. Rather, their merits should be discussed and consensus for their use should be sought on a case-by-case-basis when discussing templates and style guides, as with any

1277:

using microformats and other metadata, it is in the interest of the project to provide them, even if it serves primarily as "yummy hack fodder". We should be mindful of the higher-order implications of providing this data—for example, if the "yummy hack fodder" were to become a vector for attracting

1251:

Knowledge content is meant to be read by humans, not machines. The inclusion of a microformat should not compromise in any way the experience a human reader has, including special cases like the experience of blind users with JAWS. If a microformat is dictating an awkward format in articles, the use

1245:

field, their birth date, or some other information? We should not be inventing our own ontology, or the purpose of standardization inherent in the microformat becomes pointless. Further, the structure ought to be itself clear and correct to the extent available; error-ridden formats are also useless.

721:

class used in a Knowledge template should be readily traceable to the source of the relevant extension that defines it. I think it might even be desirable to start a new namespace "Class:", where a reference (at minimum) and an easier-to-read manual (ideally) is provided for each class, and classes

2961:

currently emits metadata (via ADR and hRecipe microformats) that denote the origin of the dish (country and region) and a list of the primary ingredients. With this metadata in all our food-related articles, someone would be able to search for "all dishes that originate in Sicily and contain dill",

2799:

I urge people to disregard the partisan nature of the RfC wording; and the ad hominem attacks both on the talk page and in linked prior discussion, and to consider instead the veracity of the assertions made about the way microformats work and are used, and the evidence provided to support that, on

1189:

Wrt. to 2 it's worth mentioning that page generation time is also a concern. Normally only Knowledge editors are affected by this (not readers who are not logged in), but in some cases it takes a minute or longer for the server to generate the HTML for a page. This problem is very hard to pinpoint,

123:

Several microformat enthusiasts have been busy spreading microformat markup throughout Knowledge's collection of templates. This can substantially increase the size and complexity of the template. However, there has never been a community-wide discussion where this technology was embraced. As such,

3139:

and the associated archive page. In that case, there were apparently legitimate concerns that the proposed class addition wasn't productive. This is more than just "we should be cautious", as it was Andy himself who was strongly arguing for the support in question. I'd certainly hope that this RfC

457:

Having experience with a case where the use of microformats meant that the layout of an infobox worsened and info had to be removed from it, and seeing that the main proponent of the use of microformats here claims to have refuted this without having done anything such thing, I can not support the

1514:

Providing potentially useful metadata is a good thing in principle, even if that metadata is not yet widely used. That's because it allows and encourages the development of methods to use our compendium of human knowlege in new ways useful to the public, consistent with our mission. The number of

1262:

Use of microformats should be consistent across articles. It would not make sense to have one microformat on, say, musician articles and another on painter articles unless one microformat is specific to a particular field (such as geo-coordinates, perhaps?)—in which case we would want to minimize

1947:

I'm not of the opinion that having semantic metadata all over the place is actually useful at this stage. Knowledge is full of information, which in theory means that we can add hooks and stuff to all the content. That would create an unworkable system. Geodata, refs/books, infoboxes, perhaps an

1244:

We should only use microformats when they can and will be used in a way that uses a correct structure and one that is semantically "clean". For example, using a generic "start date" for a birth date on biographical articles is semantically unclear—is that the date the subject was active in their

712:

was only because another editor gave me a link to the particular extension. I also don't know if any classes like "geo", "latitude", and "longitude" are being defined and supported in the browser extensions that are mentioned or if there's something in the Knowledge code/extensions that defines

708:

I don't see this. I do see that it uses (simply for display) a class "horizontal". But how does the user know how this class works, what it can do? There's no link to follow. I recall seeing classes defined in various Mediawiki extensions, but to tell you the truth, the one case I managed to

3124:

In general I'm strongly in favour of using the templating system to transparently add semantic value to our markup, and I think Andy's rebuttal above is cogent. That said, I still have some concerns with the way we're currently deploying microformats support which warrant more discussion that a

3201:

I really don't understand the need for drama because of such a pettiness. Nobody minds if you're not using the Microformat templates, but rather common text. And yes, they're pretty useless at first view for the average reader, but that's not what they're supposed to be there. They're made for

1573:

I too agree that "a general discussion or policy about whether to use or not to use microformats as a matter of principle is … not very helpful" and that "microformat opponents should approach each case individually with an open mind rather than letting this become a factional dispute" is an`

176:

for song lengths to provide metadata that few readers will ever access. According to a Yahoo employee, microformats are "yummy hack fodder", but I don't think that Knowledge should be a test bed for hack fodder. In order for microformat support to be added to a template there should be a clear

2905:

Andy makes a compelling case for microformats. I have no concerns about the microformat-related edits Andy has been making in the last couple of years, which seem to be both considered and gradual (the one thumperward mentions below seems to me to be a trivial edit, which adds something at no

2891:

The conclusion is unnecessarily abrasive, but fortunately it stands separately from the points raised. This is a good rebuttal to the arguments in favour of the general curtailing of the use of microformats on Knowledge. That said, I've got a couple of concerns; I'll post a separate opinion.

1908:

are currently used, but it's basically a hack. This hack is messing with the 'default' lack of semantic meaning of the html/css and this technology wise is a bad idea in my opinion. An html class attribute should not be abused for conveying semantic meaning (even if not strictly forbidden by

1518:

But our principal audience (by far!) are human readers and our primary resource are nonexpert volunteer writers, so metadata mechanisms should never get in the way of reading or writing Knowledge and should not become mandatory. The balance between the cost and the benefit of using metadata

873:, for example, being used repeatedly on the same article, with no clear indication of what it means to be a "start" date, nor which start dates correspond to which end dates. This both increases the problems of #2, and renders all the metadata useless, as the semantics are no longer clear. 2204:(a relatively crude method of reaping data from text by reverse-engineering its structure) only works on our site, and probably only on that one template, or a small group of templates; and if we change the template, the scraper is broken. By using microformats, they can use an existing 2091:

This suggests that the problem isn't the actual existence of microformats in Wiki articles nearly as much as the cumbersome, complex, templated, and non-human readable way they seem to be done. If a microformat was literally as simple as a line of markup at the end of an article saying

2680:

microformats, where no existing microformat is applicable, as part of our contribution the creation of future microformats. In practise, this simply means that, where we use classes, they should be semantically meaningful, and not presentational. This is good practice for all HTML

458:

widespread use of them on Knowledge for the moment. I have no problem with using them in cases where they have absolutely no negative impact on Knowledge (editors and/or readers) and a positive outside use (as apparently is the case in "coord"), but those seem to be very limited.

3135:: namely, that our deployment of sometimes bleeding-edge standards can actually be harmful. For instance, one of the triggers for this RfC was the deployment of microformats to mark up stub templates, and I think it's odd that nobody has linked to that discussion yet: see 2687:

Wrong. Very wrong. Not the view of the Wikimedia Foundation, as evidenced above. And contradicted by the subsequent bullet point, "Metadata is desirable", as part of the same view (and endorsed by people jointly!). Knowledge content is meant to be -and is - read by people

1551:

Eminently reasonable, though I don't agree that a general discussion or policy about whether to use microformats as a matter of principle is unhelpful. Microformat proponents have been claiming that consensus has already been established, without backing up their claims.

1915:, another semantic metadata format, is problematic in the gigantic overhead it creates for references, due to basically duplicating all the data. Despite this observation, I have found COinS to be rather useful if, for instance, you are in college and use something like 491: 2791:(few criticising microformats here seem to have done either), in order to find still better ways for us to make our data parsable and reusable, removing any remaining ambiguities, and increasing ease of use for editors - just as we do with the rest of our activities. 1032:

A contrast between the first point and the fourth point is telling. Should we reduce the quality of an article (even in a small way, like mangling an infobox entry) to allow a little-used function to operate properly? That makes little sense to me. --

348:

Knowledge's simplicity and accessability has always been one of its greatest strengths, and we should actively remove so-called features that get in the way of that. I imagine if Knowledge had existed in 1996 people would have tried to foist

3033:; while noting that each microformat we use is listed and documented on (or via) the project page; and that the DBPedia examples do not use microformats, and cater to a different audience. See further comments on related talk page section. 962:

Agree with all of this, but point four especially. We must always prefer readable prose - that means the freedom to always write readable prose as the editor sees it - over restrictions imposed by technical substrates of the software.

2208:(a relatively sophisticated method of extracting data from a logically marked-up document by following a clear schema or specification), which work on all templates using that microformat, and on any other site which uses it; if they 1932:

to pass along microformats. I think we should have separated this metadata syntax into separate parameters. That might make it easier to change things later on (I'm thinking about potential future integration with mediawiki software

108:, provide the ability to detect microformats within an HTML document. When hCard or hCalendar are involved, such browser extensions allow to export them into formats compatible with contact management and calendar utilities, such as 177:

advantage and benefit to our reader, and this should be discussed and agreed-upon beforehand. Existing microformat implementations without demonstrable benefit to the reader should be stripped from templates for simplicity's sake.

165:

My view is that microformats are an as-yet-unproven technology that provide little-to-no benefit to the average Knowledge reader while unnecessarily complicating our templates and burdening editors with having to use things like

1256:, where the template system can and should be made simpler where possible. In either case, this is more or less the same principle that the use of microformats ought not to interfere with other Knowledge policies or guidelines. 884:), existing style, flexibility and guidelines must be violated in order to correctly emit microformats. Sacrificing what everyone sees for the benefit of what almost no-one will ever see is a clear mis-placement of priorities. 524:(see comments by OrangeDog below) which is undoubtedly useful, makes extensive use of microformats. I am prepared to be open-minded about other uses: the average reader might well not be assisted but is not hindered either. 1948:

album listing, but for now, that's enough in my opinion. We should freeze and see where this is going. We are already emitting more semantic metadata than most other websites, we have done our part in pushing technology.

2590:

renders content in exactly the same visual style as the plain text which it replaces. One of the following durations uses the template; one plain text; without looking at the source, can you tell which is which? 4:32 -

1767:

It is possible that these efforts have gone too far in certain areas, but that seems to be more about limitations of MediaWiki, which should simply be pushed forward to cope. Increase the template expansion limit.

411:

A reluctant "concur" (I have admired Andy's work on this and helped him with it in the past) - except for the phrase "unproven technology" - I have no problems with the idea that Microfomats work, the question is:

610: 613:, which reuses all the microformats from a single Knowledge article, via one of the third-party tools for manipulating this supposed "as-yet-unproven technology", which statements above allege don't exist(!). 1780:

Most of this will be in templates, which less knowledgeable editors should avoid, anyway. Remember when maps.google started offering the option of showing geo-tagged articles? This is that, but so much more.

864:

Over-usage of metadata in all its forms (COinS, etc.) actually makes the data less useful. If we standardised on one type, user apps would be able to more easily deal with it. Also, I see many instances of

2957:

Some of the repeated objections seem to ultimately stem from the titles of the microformats: hcalendar, hrecipe, etc. Again, this is hopefully resolvable just by running through a few examples. E.g.

2283:

the number of pages published with one or more hCards recently crossed the 2 billion mark... according to Yahoo Search Monkey, making it the most popular format for people or organizations on the web

1632:

So far there are no microformat opponents, just opponents to the current practice, of a very small group, of inserting them at every opportunity without consensus or against reasonable objection.

2748:...will store data. That data could be sourced by extracting it from microformatted content. When it's (re-)imported and displayed on our pages, it should still be wrapped in microformat mark-up. 2104:

that was transparent and non-disruptive to our end-users' experience, with the actual HTML generated from this being modified as standards stabilized, then I would imagine fewer would object.

2622:

the manual creation of citation templates. Editors should not have to enter material twice; as content then as metadata. They should enter it once, and it should then be emitted both as prose

2138:, thanking me for my work deploying microformats in Knowledge, and asking if I would be prepared to cross the Atlantic to speak about microformats at a forthcoming Wikimedia event in the USA. 1252:

of that microformat should be rethought. Ideally, a human reader should not realize that the microformats are there, unless they're looking for them. This also applies, to a lesser degree, to

1237:

I don't particularly mind the inclusion or exclusion of microformats from Knowledge, but I think that there are some broader principles that we can agree on before we consider specific cases:

2167:

There is no other way for us to impart meaning to content on our pages, than to add labels using either in-line HTML or Knowledge templates (templates which are no more complicated than say,

1097:

Only with respect to 4, as I don't consider 1 to be a problem (chicken and egg...) and know too little about the technical side of things to understand 3 or to see 2 as a serious problem.

2662:

for audio recordings, etc.) and context. (There is as yet no microformat attribute for "active in their field"). No example of this issue having caused confusion or ambiguity is provided.

2485:

There is no such thing, in HTML, as a "class tag". if what is meant is a "class attribute", then this is exactly how they were designed to be used, according to the HTML specification.

1752:, and for things we can't imagine, yet, thing that will aid readers indirectly. This project is a bunch of things, an encyclopaedia, a website, and a database. microformats are about 1145: 638:

Microformats are a good thing if it can be shown that they benefit the reader. I share the opinion that they will in the future, but here is an example of them doing so now. --

2510:

Every class used in a Knowledge template should be readily traceable to the source of the relevant extension that defines it; microformats silently reserve lots of class names

2987:

So: With real-estate, the mantra is "location, location, location". With metadata at Knowledge, the requested mantra is "examples, examples, examples (and documentation)".

2943: 2774:

of microformats: they label the content on the page, there is no need to duplicate it, reducing volume and removing the possibility of disparity between data and metadata

1889: 690: 1922:

The mixup of html/css semantics with semantic metadata of microformats is something that has crept into Knowledge as well. Many infoboxes now use the |class options of

2449:

Knowledge is not being used as a test bed. The microformats deployed are all already in use elsewhere, and parsed by more then one external tool. Microformats are not

3113: 2929: 1952: 1875: 1816: 1625: 633: 580: 3154: 3067: 2900: 2862: 2413:

is optional, and editors can still enter plain text if they prefer - other editors or bots can make the substitution later, as already happens with, for example,

1847: 649: 550: 1830: 1677: 1594: 1485: 1457: 1370: 1320: 571: 3218: 3030: 2984:

is huge and useful, by being able to add/overlay/zoom/etc into all the available data, on any given topic (from cars, to species, to people, to wars, to food).

2844: 1861: 757:

This is my major objection to the way microformats are implemented in general: they silently reserve lots of class names. This makes them very overcomplicated.

663: 975: 3168: 2915: 1702: 1664: 1432: 1337: 1278:

volunteer developers to MediaWiki, it would certainly have not been useless, even if it does not see wider third-party use or things built from that "fodder".

1197: 1092: 676: 533: 449: 3048: 2969:

into a site/program, and it will use our metadata to autogenerate a timeline of events, and in this case it could also generate something like a heatmap (as

1647: 1503: 1353: 1226: 1109: 993: 909: 604: 3099: 2886: 1729: 1471: 1384: 1171: 1066: 1027: 420:

Having seen some of the stuff emitted (with respect to human names), and other comments, documented elsewhere, I would answer no, for the following reasons

3190: 2459:

The benefit may not be to the reader. It may be to a third party, or to a person who uses a third party tool or site which reuses our microformatted data.

2377:

Unsubstantiated assertions. Templates exist specifically to contain (sometimes complex) markup and coding, so that our editors need not be exposed to them.

1523:

other change to Knowledge. Microformat advocates should temper their boldness with respect for our expectation that wide-ranging changes require consensus

1437:

On re-reading, I can support this - because the principles are already complied with, and all the concerns an caveats already addressed; or are straw-men.

957: 943: 888:

In summary, limited, consensus-based, well-regulated use of appropriate metadata can be a good thing. The status quo is at best useless, at worst harmful.

842:

Many Knowledge articles are nearing or past the usable levels of complexity, both in terms of template code and generated HTML (frequent threads appear at

2037: 1184: 1015: 296: 3063: 3055: 2858: 2851: 2120: 2063: 2011: 1715: 1406: 1131: 1052: 769: 479: 2073: 1568: 1527:

implementation. And microformat opponents should approach each case individually with an open mind rather than letting this become a factional dispute.

1158: 924: 380: 276: 258: 406: 343: 307: 239: 2974: 2767:

COinS, another semantic metadata format, is problematic in the gigantic overhead it creates for references, due to basically duplicating all the data.

1944:

content (as opposed to templates), the harder it will be to adapt later on. With unproven technology, the chances that we will have to adapt are real.

228: 208: 3119: 1191: 473: 286: 1791: 509: 330: 134: 2742:

We won't run out of metadata. We should publish as much as we can, not self-impose some arbitrary limit for the sake of it. Knowledge is not paper.

467: 393: 752: 2164:), sequences of characters on a page, which we read as, say, a name or a date, so that machines can also understand that that is what they are. 788:, there are currently no user applications that make meaningful use of our microformats. The only useful use I have seen is with geo-coordinates 2754:

We use hRecipe to label food stuffs as such, not to mark up cookery instructions. Emitting semantic metadata in this way is not "out of scope".

2906:

expense). (Much of the opposition is indeed 'ad hominem' - I can't imagine a non-Mabbett would experience such difficulties with tiny edits.)

2084:

Some examples would be good, many users won't know what "microformats" are in the context of a wiki article or how they are used externally.

1141: 1601: 1564: 1546: 1307: 835: 3006: 2830: 858:

Clarification - I attempt to refer here to the quantity of HTML, which increases download and display times. 16:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

2514: 437:

Some of the above reasons may, however, change as technology changes, or not be considered applicable to, for example, coördinate data.

1940:

to solve the above problems, though I point out that switching to that won't be easy with our current implementations of microformats.

2716:

No, microformats are using the semantic tool - class names - built into HTML in the way that was always intended. Read the HTML spec.

2526:

Unsubstantiated assertion. If you find things confusing, there is a project page where you can explain your confusion and seek help.

1987: 1740:

I've not been much involved in discussions concerning this, but I've seen this evolving on-wiki for some years. This is core to how

2970: 2966: 2954:

I believe much of this could be cleared up with a clearer FAQ, and set of examples, which is hopefully what this RFC will lead to.

1137: 120:

announced that they would be parsing the hCard, hReview and hProduct microformats, and using them to populate search result pages.

2632:

That's just the name of a template. A redirect with a different name can be created, if desired; as can a parent template calling

194: 2794: 2114: 737: 3196: 2488:

I do see that uses (simply for display) a class "horizontal". But how does the user know how this class works, what it can do?

585:

Okay that Seattle map is cool (especially since I'm just outside of Seattle). I don't think they should be banned outright. --

1993: 1960:

happy to let what we have stay around, but I don't think we should expand it any further into the encyclopedia at this time.

999: 2650:

This is usually determined (in Knowledge) by the template parameter name; and in the emitted microformat by the class name (

710: 1490:

Agree that clarity, simplicity, and no additional confusion caused by mark-up are more important than emitting metadata. —

3228:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3136: 854:, etc.). If much of the metadata were removed, these pages would be far more usable, and templates more easy to maintain. 3026: 2826: 2719:

The mixup of html/css semantics with semantic metadata of microformats is something that has crept into Knowledge as well

1812: 1621: 1590: 1453: 629: 152:

If consensus disfavours microformats, further discussion may be required regarding existing microformat implementations.

149:

If consensus if found supporting microformats, guidelines should be provided as to their appropriate use and deployment.

2698:

Ours are; and accord with the relevant microformat specifications, so are consistent with those on other wsebsites, too.

701:

For the uninitiated, when you look into it to try to see how it works, a class tag looks like a dead end. For example,

112:. When dealing with geographical coordinates, they allow to send the location to maps applications such as Google Maps. 3071: 2866: 2788: 2778: 2518: 2456:

In order for microformat support to be added to a template there should be a clear advantage and benefit to our reader,

2713:

Microformats are .. basically a hack. This hack is messing with the 'default' lack of semantic meaning of the html/css

2370:

The concerns raised above are, variously, based on false assumptions or misleading statements; or already addressed:

2739:

We are already emitting more semantic metadata than most other websites, we have done our part in pushing technology

3075: 2870: 2025: 1735: 1690: 1420: 1080: 645: 485: 2707:

we should be looking for which are ... not overly specific to particular entities, particularly non-free software

2609:

We must always prefer readable prose - that means the freedom to always write readable prose as the editor sees it

817:

Revision - Some of the coords functionality is due to microformats, but is still possible without it by using the

2054: 2006: 1796:

Sense at last; thank you - though rather than "going too far in certain areas", we haven't gone far enough, yet.

1642: 1519:

mechanisms varies with each use case (depending on complexity, potential usefulness etc.) and changes over time.

1298: 904: 830: 253: 2276: 2267:

There are plugins, bookmarkets and greasemoney scripts for using microformats in Firefox, IE, Opera and Chrome.

780:

While metadata is a good thing to have, there are a number of problems with the current practices on Knowledge.

100:

Support for microformats is not yet provided natively by most web browsers. Several browser extensions, such as

2977:. I tried a few other sites, but I can't find many working examples; perhaps Andy can point towards some more? 17: 3214: 3109: 2939: 2618:

Unfounded and mistaken assertion. The reverse is the case; consider the citation-entry interface, which came

1885: 1744:

is evolving, it's about building for the future. It's not directly for the readers, it's for next generation

686: 2965:

Similarly with hCalendar, it's for generating things like timelines. We should be able to enter the url for

2644:

This has no effect on the dates in emitted microformats. (Evidence of an example to the contrary is invited)

2374:

can substantially increase the size and complexity of the template; unnecessarily complicating our templates

2981: 2783:

None of this is to say that our use of microformats is perfect nor complete. This is a wiki; we constantly

2125: 1509: 1232: 775: 742:

I agree that the existing implementation of microformats is by-and-large confusing to the average editor. –

146:

Clear consensus as to whether microformats should be embraced by Knowledge and provided via our templates.

127: 94: 1955:

ideas that have been floating around, I think such developments can be much more valuable in the long run.

3186: 2949: 2553: 2437: 2181: 1983: 1402: 1127: 2882: 2647:...is that the date the subject was active in their field, their birth date, or some other information? 2577:), existing style, flexibility and guidelines must be violated in order to correctly emit microformats. 706: 1515:

ways in which third parties such as Google use our geodata is an example for this beneficial dynamic.

785: 490:

I don't see any reason to exclude microformats as a general rule -- they're useful. For example, see

444: 124:

there have been localized disputes at various templates and template talk pages and other locations

3210: 3105: 2980:

I don't know much about microformats specifically, but I greatly look forward to the time when our

2935: 2710:

There are no microformats "specific to particular entities" or " specific to ... non-free software"

2365: 1895: 1881: 682: 980:

Agree to 1,3,4 in particular; 2 excluding HTML complexity, which I don't see as a deal-breaker. —

3022: 2925: 2822: 2270: 1871: 1808: 1617: 1586: 1481: 1449: 1316: 625: 505: 160: 2629:

using a generic "start date" for a birth date on biographical articles is semantically unclear.

2079: 696: 3151: 2897: 2501: 970: 764: 702: 113: 2615:

Until there is a separation between content entry and metadata entry, it should not be used.

2279:", detailing the widespread use of microformats. Here are some key facts from that article: 1835:

Build for the future; just don't make it too awkward. Let the templates work their magic! --

1062: 339: 3045: 2561:

Over-usage of metadata in all it's forms (COinS, etc.) actually makes the data less useful

2523:

The existing implementation of microformats is by-and-large confusing to the average editor

2135: 2030: 1844: 1695: 1661: 1425: 1334: 1194: 1085: 642: 547: 476: 441: 101: 8: 3095: 2050: 2002: 1826: 1638: 1499: 1294: 1264: 1220: 989: 900: 868: 826: 272: 249: 812:

generates a link to a variety of different mapping services. 16:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

3164: 3013: 3002: 2921: 2840: 2813: 2733: 2427: 2068: 1867: 1857: 1799: 1788: 1725: 1674: 1608: 1577: 1477: 1467: 1440: 1380: 1367: 1362:

aid users/readers. and consistency would be nice, but since when has that much emerged

1312: 1167: 1024: 659: 616: 577: 501: 402: 304: 236: 2275:

Also just before this RfC, the microformats blog published a fifth anniversary post, "

2784: 2770:

Although COinS are outside the scope of this RfC, this comment highlights one of the

2726:- CSS is for presentation, not meaning. It conveys no semantics. There is no "mixup". 2692:

machines. Microformats enable this (otherwise, why does robots.txt not disallow all?)

2584: 2571: 2529:

There are currently no user applications that make meaningful use of our microformats

2407: 2394: 1937: 953: 936: 879: 221: 204: 170: 109: 105: 3147: 3129: 2911: 2893: 2417: 2171: 2156:

They do this simply by labelling, using HTML classes in the way in which they were

1926: 1772: 1673:

be mandatory; details will be tucked away in templates, for the most part. Cheers,

1180: 1011: 966: 760: 672: 529: 291: 81:

and other attributes in web pages and other contexts that support (X)HTML, such as

2787:. Anyone involved in or reading this debate is welcome to join and participate in 2541:...ditto, Barak Obama (the quantity of HTML increases download and display times.) 2507:

is a sub-template for documenting other templates; it does not emit a microformat.

2347:

Wikiepdia in other languages - which have chosen to emulate what we have achieved.

1058: 335: 3182: 3037: 2020: 1979: 1836: 1711: 1685: 1653: 1415: 1398: 1326: 1123: 1075: 1047: 639: 599: 539: 325: 2722:

No; HTML class names are designed to be used semantically. "CSS semantics" is a

3088: 2878: 2470: 2044: 1997: 1822: 1633: 1560: 1537: 1492: 1344: 1288: 1216: 1154: 1100: 982: 922: 895: 822: 807: 793: 750: 562: 518: 463: 415:

Do they provide something useful currently and in the way they are implemented?

389: 362: 265: 244: 192: 86: 66: 2479:

coord works by emitting a microformat. That's was the reason for its creation.

2131: 472:

I fully agree with Xeno, and I think I have said enough about this elsewhere.

3160: 2998: 2920:

Agree with both the summary and Chris Cunningham’s summary of the summary :)

2836: 2287: 2191: 2143: 1853: 1721: 1463: 1376: 1163: 1021: 843: 733: 655: 398: 301: 233: 155: 117: 45: 2751:

Some of what we have already (e.g. hRecipe) are clearly out of project scope

2606:

False. The status quo is demonstrably useful. No harm has been demonstrated.

2094:<data duration="93" height="17cm" geolocation="17.23461,55.438102" /: --> 2958: 2729:

An html class attribute should not be abused for conveying semantic meaning

2535:

Many Knowledge articles are nearing or past the usable levels of complexity

2224: 2058: 1302: 949: 929: 214: 200: 90: 2277:

microformats.org at 5: Two Billion Pages With hCards, 94% of Rich Snippets

2907: 2545: 1905: 1745: 1176: 1007: 847: 668: 525: 283: 57: 998:

I suggested something like microformats over five years ago in my first

141: 3174: 2538:

Unsubstantiated opinion. Even if true, nothing to do with microformats.

1971: 1900:

In principal I'm a proponent of semantic metadata in Knowledge, but...

1707: 1390: 1115: 1035: 587: 313: 2612:

This is allowed by all of our microformat implementations (see above).

2161: 2098:<data title="We will rock you" group="Queen" year="19xx" ... /: --> 722:

can be placed into categories, and Talk pages are available for each.

138:

ended in a deadlock seemingly without consensus one way or the other.

2701:

We should be looking for which are ... in real use outside Knowledge

2669: 2256: 1749: 1553: 1150: 915: 743: 459: 385: 185: 2212:

write their own parser, we won't break it by changing our template.

1358:

Mostly agree. nits: microformats are to aid levels of software that

432:

Natural language processing can do most of this stuff pretty easily.

116:

can be used to extract microformats from web pages. On 12 May 2009,

2111: 729: 78: 2261: 818: 3140:

resulted in a broader discussion than a simple for/against call.

2654:

for birthdate, or the creation date of organisations and places;

2446:

I don't think that Knowledge should be a test bed for hack fodder

2354:

Among organisations parsing (interpreting) our microformats are:

2236: 2294:

Among the very many organisations publishing microformats are:

1916: 2745:

The centralized data wiki ideas that have been floating around

2704:

All the microformats we use are in real use outside Knowledge.

2684:

Knowledge content is meant to be read by humans, not machines.

2242:

The tools which do this include, but are far from limited to:

2973:

with the wikileaks info). E.g. a simple example via dbpedia,

2626:

as metadata. This is what our microformat implementations do.

1912: 74: 1375:

Nothing wrong with hack fodder, as long as it's yummy! ;) --

2801: 2757:

I see some promise in microdata to solve the above problems

2232: 2228: 2130:

Just a few days before this RfC, I received an e-mail from

350: 70: 2934:

There's nothing that can better explain this situation. --

1267:—but that special case would have to be carefully limited. 2764:

use in generic data exchange such as that discussed here.

2695:

Use of microformats should be consistent across articles.

2220: 2216: 2102:<data value="duration:3:25:17" display="3h 25m" /: --> 851: 82: 2513:

Classes are not "defined by an extension". However, see

2361:

Yahoo (provide a specific search category for Knowledge)

2215:

Our microformatted data can be downloaded as variously,

2200:

If a user codes a scraper for one of our templates, the

2760:

Microdata (for good or bad) is explicitly specified to

89:

to process information intended for end-users (such as

2251: 69:

approach to semantic markup, seeks to re-use existing

3082:

Support the idea of mechanism for searching/grouping

2141:

Prior to that, Erik had spoken, in an article called

3137:

template talk:asbox#Add 'bodyclass' parameter, redux

2603:

The status quo is at best useless, at worst harmful.

2390:...burdening editors with having to use things like 2246: 494:, with links to Knowledge articles overlaid on it. 36:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

705:

is described as "where class=dtstart is hardcoded".

2463:give benefit to our readers, and the wider public. 576:They're damn useful. Gonna have to offer a view. 3148:Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) 2894:Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) 804:Clarification - I am referring to the fact that 97:, calendar events, and the like) automatically. 2290:with support for microformats and RDFa; 94% use 2544:The full file size when I recently downloaded 2380:Microformats are an as-yet-unproven technology 514:My understanding, admittedly limited, is that 914:A well-stated encapsulation of my concerns. – 39:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 1992:Although some of what we have already (e.g. 1669:Mostly agree here, too, although core stuff 2665:We should not be inventing our own ontology 1411:Per TheDJ; a foundation to their use here. 609:Short but sweet. A better example might be 2515:Knowledge:WikiProject Microformats/classes 2350:Associated Press (added to list 19 August) 1241:Well-structured, semantically clean markup 423:Not enough consistency in the data emitted 2100:, or to mark individual snippets of data 2967:List of ships attacked by Somali pirates 2676:be devising sets of HTML class names as 2121:View by Andy Mabbett (aka Pigsonthewing) 790:, but this is redundant to our existing 2223:(and thus our data becomes part of the 1904:I'd like to see a good implementation. 1389:Good set of basic principles I think. — 1071:Hits the key issues right on the head. 1002:. But what it requires to be useful is 130:for a partial list of past discussions) 14: 3120:View by Thumperward (Chris Cunningham) 353:upon it too, but just because a thing 2144:Knowledge to Add Meaning to Its Pages 429:Not a good enough base of client apps 426:Not a sufficiently universal standard 2641:...renders all the metadata useless, 1996:) are clearly out of project scope. 1057:I agree with 2 and 3 in particular. 30:The following discussion is closed. 2494:is nothing to do with microformats. 2162:detailed in our own article on HTML 1970:, lol thx for reminding Orangdog. — 1273:When there are not good reasons to 23: 2519:Knowledge:Catalogue of CSS classes 2323:Telnec (for all .tel domain pages) 24: 3238: 2638:. Examples of both already exist. 2482:A class tag looks like a dead end 1602:Xeno has edited the above comment 3224:The discussion above is closed. 3205:Users who endorse this summary: 3143:Users who endorse this summary: 2993:Users who endorse this summary: 2807:Users who endorse this summary: 2107:Users who endorse this summary: 1963:Users who endorse this summary: 1784:Users who endorse this summary: 1530:Users who endorse this summary: 1282:Users who endorse this summary: 891:Users who endorse this summary: 725:Users who endorse this summary: 497:Users who endorse this summary: 180:Users who endorse this summary: 2286:in May of 2009 Google launched 819:http://toolserver.org/~geohack/ 1004:integration into the interface 135:recent village pump discussion 18:Knowledge:Requests for comment 13: 1: 3219:14:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 3114:14:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 2944:14:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 1890:14:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 1227:14:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1198:09:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC) 691:14:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 480:09:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC) 468:07:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC) 2990:Or something like that. :) 2982:Category:Graphical timelines 2785:improve the way we do things 2384: 1020:Indeed. Especially point 4. 128:User:Hans Adler/Microformats 7: 3197:View by The Evil IP address 3191:21:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 3169:17:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 3155:08:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 3100:19:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 3049:00:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC) 3031:23:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 3007:22:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 2930:14:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC) 2916:16:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC) 2901:08:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 2887:12:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC) 2845:23:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 2831:14:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 2115:01:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 2074:21:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 2064:02:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 2038:16:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 2012:14:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1988:15:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1951:I'm very interested in the 1876:13:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC) 1862:23:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 1848:21:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1831:20:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1817:09:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1792:00:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1764:. This is a piece of that. 1730:23:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 1716:16:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 1703:16:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1678:00:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1665:23:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1648:22:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1626:22:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1595:22:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1569:22:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1547:21:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1504:19:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 1486:13:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC) 1472:23:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 1458:23:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1433:16:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1407:13:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1385:08:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1371:00:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1354:21:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1338:21:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1321:20:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1308:20:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1248:Human-readable input/output 1185:01:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 1172:19:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC) 1159:16:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 1146:21:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1132:13:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1110:21:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1093:20:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1067:19:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1053:17:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1028:16:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1016:15:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1000:Semantic Knowledge proposal 994:15:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 976:15:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 958:14:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 944:14:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 925:14:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 910:14:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 836:11:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 770:15:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 753:15:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 738:14:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 677:01:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 664:23:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 650:04:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 634:11:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 605:00:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 581:23:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 572:21:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 555:But conversely also not to 551:21:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 534:16:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 510:13:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 450:23:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC) 407:19:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC) 394:16:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 381:17:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 344:19:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 331:17:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 308:16:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 297:15:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 287:15:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 277:15:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 259:14:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 240:14:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 229:13:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 209:13:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 195:13:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 10: 3243: 2466:Redundant to our existing 1202:Particularly 1, 3, and 4. 1114:Fully support this view. — 104:for Firefox and Oomph for 2734:this is what class is for 2668:Nor are we. Can we avoid 2134:, Deputy Director of the 1760:, we're not paper, we're 1754:adding meaning to content 293:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 3226:Please do not modify it. 2975:Aerosmith album timeline 2789:the microformats project 2672:, please? That said, we 2564:Unsubstantiated opinion. 2016:Especially 4, 5, and 6. 559:them as a general rule. 357:be done doesn't mean it 33:Please do not modify it. 85:. This approach allows 61:(sometimes abbreviated 2580:False; see talk page. 2151:what microformats do. 1936:I see some promise in 1605:, since I wrote mine. 95:geographic coordinates 3076:few or no other edits 2871:few or no other edits 1953:centralized data wiki 1736:View by Jack Merridew 1270:Metadata is desirable 703:Template:UF-hcal-auto 486:View by SarekOfVulcan 114:Yahoo! Query Language 3086:microformat data. — 3078:outside this topic. 2873:outside this topic. 2567:In some cases (e.g. 2136:Wikimedia Foundation 876:In some cases (e.g. 3211:The Evil IP address 3106:The Evil IP address 2936:The Evil IP address 2732:There is no abuse, 2383:Utterly false: See 2158:intended to be used 1882:The Evil IP address 1265:Special:Booksources 683:The Evil IP address 492:this map of Seattle 91:contact information 2779:Future development 2554:birth date and age 2492:class="horizontal" 2438:Birth date and age 2182:Birth date and age 932:♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ 217:♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ 184:As filer of RFC. – 3098: 3079: 2877:Well-said. Erik ( 2874: 2532:False; see above. 2344:Wikimedia Commons 2010: 1969: 1646: 1545: 1510:View by Sandstein 1502: 1352: 1259:Consistent format 1233:View by Nihiltres 1224: 1213: 1108: 992: 908: 859: 834: 813: 776:View by OrangeDog 570: 275: 257: 110:Microsoft Outlook 106:Internet Explorer 3234: 3178: 3134: 3128: 3091: 3087: 3061: 3059: 3058: 3043: 3029: 3020: 3016: 2971:people are doing 2950:View by Quiddity 2856: 2855: 2854: 2829: 2820: 2816: 2802:microformat wiki 2661: 2658:for start date, 2657: 2653: 2637: 2636: 2600: 2599: 2595: 2589: 2583: 2576: 2570: 2558: 2552: 2506: 2500: 2493: 2475: 2469: 2442: 2436: 2432: 2426: 2422: 2416: 2412: 2406: 2400:for song lengths 2399: 2393: 2196: 2190: 2186: 2180: 2176: 2170: 2071: 2062: 2047: 2035: 2033: 2028: 2023: 2000: 1975: 1968:TheDJ presumably 1967: 1931: 1925: 1842: 1821:Whole heartedly 1815: 1806: 1802: 1777: 1771: 1700: 1698: 1693: 1688: 1659: 1636: 1624: 1615: 1611: 1604: 1593: 1584: 1580: 1567: 1558: 1544: 1542: 1535: 1495: 1491: 1456: 1447: 1443: 1430: 1428: 1423: 1418: 1394: 1351: 1349: 1342: 1332: 1306: 1291: 1214: 1212: 1209: 1207: 1119: 1107: 1105: 1098: 1090: 1088: 1083: 1078: 1050: 1044: 1041: 1038: 985: 981: 974: 933: 920: 898: 883: 872: 857: 816: 811: 803: 797: 768: 748: 632: 623: 619: 602: 596: 593: 590: 569: 567: 560: 545: 523: 517: 378: 375: 372: 369: 328: 322: 319: 316: 294: 268: 264: 247: 218: 190: 175: 169: 35: 3242: 3241: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3199: 3176: 3132: 3126: 3122: 3089: 3054: 3053: 3041: 3018: 3012: 3011: 2952: 2850: 2849: 2818: 2812: 2811: 2797: 2781: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2634: 2633: 2597: 2593: 2592: 2587: 2581: 2574: 2568: 2556: 2550: 2504: 2498: 2491: 2473: 2467: 2440: 2434: 2430: 2424: 2420: 2414: 2410: 2404: 2397: 2391: 2368: 2273: 2194: 2188: 2184: 2178: 2174: 2168: 2128: 2123: 2082: 2069: 2045: 2042: 2031: 2026: 2021: 2018: 1973: 1929: 1923: 1898: 1840: 1804: 1798: 1797: 1775: 1769: 1738: 1696: 1691: 1686: 1683: 1657: 1613: 1607: 1606: 1600: 1582: 1576: 1575: 1563: 1554: 1538: 1536: 1512: 1493: 1445: 1439: 1438: 1426: 1421: 1416: 1413: 1392: 1345: 1343: 1330: 1289: 1286: 1235: 1210: 1208: 1205: 1117: 1101: 1099: 1086: 1081: 1076: 1073: 1048: 1042: 1039: 1036: 983: 964: 940: 931: 916: 877: 866: 805: 791: 778: 758: 744: 699: 621: 615: 614: 600: 594: 591: 588: 563: 561: 543: 521: 515: 488: 376: 373: 370: 367: 326: 320: 317: 314: 292: 266: 225: 216: 186: 173: 167: 163: 158: 144: 142:Desired outcome 77:tags to convey 53: 31: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3240: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3198: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3171: 3157: 3121: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3102: 3080: 3051: 3034: 3009: 2951: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2932: 2918: 2903: 2889: 2875: 2847: 2833: 2796: 2793: 2780: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2768: 2765: 2758: 2755: 2752: 2749: 2746: 2743: 2740: 2737: 2730: 2727: 2720: 2717: 2714: 2711: 2708: 2705: 2702: 2699: 2696: 2693: 2685: 2682: 2666: 2663: 2648: 2645: 2642: 2639: 2635:{{Start date}} 2630: 2627: 2616: 2613: 2610: 2607: 2604: 2601: 2578: 2565: 2562: 2559: 2542: 2539: 2536: 2533: 2530: 2527: 2524: 2521: 2511: 2508: 2495: 2489: 2486: 2483: 2480: 2477: 2464: 2457: 2454: 2453:"hack fodder". 2447: 2444: 2403:False. Use of 2401: 2388: 2381: 2378: 2375: 2367: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2359: 2352: 2351: 2348: 2345: 2342: 2339: 2336: 2333: 2330: 2327: 2324: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2313: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2305: 2299: 2292: 2291: 2284: 2272: 2269: 2265: 2264: 2259: 2254: 2249: 2127: 2124: 2122: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2081: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2066: 2040: 2014: 1990: 1957: 1956: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1934: 1920: 1910: 1897: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1878: 1864: 1850: 1833: 1819: 1794: 1737: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1718: 1705: 1680: 1667: 1650: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1571: 1549: 1511: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1488: 1474: 1460: 1435: 1409: 1387: 1373: 1356: 1340: 1323: 1310: 1280: 1279: 1271: 1268: 1260: 1257: 1249: 1246: 1242: 1234: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1204: 1200: 1187: 1174: 1161: 1148: 1134: 1112: 1095: 1069: 1055: 1030: 1018: 996: 978: 960: 946: 938: 927: 912: 886: 885: 874: 862: 861: 860: 840: 839: 838: 814: 777: 774: 773: 772: 755: 740: 698: 695: 694: 693: 679: 666: 652: 636: 607: 583: 574: 553: 536: 512: 487: 484: 483: 482: 470: 455: 454: 453: 438: 435: 434: 433: 430: 427: 424: 417: 416: 409: 396: 383: 363:Andrew Lenahan 346: 333: 310: 299: 289: 280: 261: 242: 231: 223: 211: 197: 162: 159: 157: 154: 143: 140: 52: 51: 50: 49: 48: 26: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3239: 3227: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3203: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3172: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3156: 3153: 3149: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3141: 3138: 3131: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3057: 3056:Martin McEvoy 3052: 3050: 3047: 3044: 3040: 3035: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3019:Pigsonthewing 3015: 3010: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2991: 2988: 2985: 2983: 2978: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2963: 2962:for example. 2960: 2955: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2933: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2922:Oli Studholme 2919: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2904: 2902: 2899: 2895: 2890: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2853: 2852:Martin McEvoy 2848: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2819:Pigsonthewing 2815: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2805: 2803: 2792: 2790: 2786: 2773: 2769: 2766: 2763: 2759: 2756: 2753: 2750: 2747: 2744: 2741: 2738: 2735: 2731: 2728: 2725: 2721: 2718: 2715: 2712: 2709: 2706: 2703: 2700: 2697: 2694: 2691: 2686: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2664: 2649: 2646: 2643: 2640: 2631: 2628: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2614: 2611: 2608: 2605: 2602: 2586: 2579: 2573: 2566: 2563: 2560: 2555: 2547: 2543: 2540: 2537: 2534: 2531: 2528: 2525: 2522: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2509: 2503: 2497:Furthermore, 2496: 2490: 2487: 2484: 2481: 2478: 2472: 2465: 2462: 2458: 2455: 2452: 2448: 2445: 2439: 2429: 2419: 2409: 2402: 2396: 2389: 2386: 2382: 2379: 2376: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2360: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2349: 2346: 2343: 2340: 2337: 2334: 2331: 2328: 2325: 2322: 2317: 2316: 2314: 2311: 2306: 2303: 2302: 2300: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2289: 2288:Rich Snippets 2285: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2278: 2268: 2263: 2260: 2258: 2255: 2253: 2250: 2248: 2247:Any-2-triples 2245: 2244: 2243: 2240: 2239:or playlist. 2238: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2213: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2198: 2193: 2183: 2173: 2165: 2163: 2159: 2154: 2152: 2150: 2146: 2145: 2139: 2137: 2133: 2116: 2113: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2105: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2089: 2085: 2075: 2072: 2067: 2065: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2041: 2039: 2036: 2034: 2029: 2024: 2015: 2013: 2008: 2004: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1961: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1939: 1935: 1928: 1921: 1918: 1914: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1896:View by TheDJ 1891: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1868:Oli Studholme 1865: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1849: 1846: 1843: 1839: 1834: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1805:Pigsonthewing 1801: 1795: 1793: 1790: 1789:Jack Merridew 1787: 1786: 1785: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1765: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1706: 1704: 1701: 1699: 1694: 1689: 1681: 1679: 1676: 1675:Jack Merridew 1672: 1668: 1666: 1663: 1660: 1656: 1651: 1649: 1644: 1640: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1614:Pigsonthewing 1610: 1603: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1583:Pigsonthewing 1579: 1572: 1570: 1566: 1561: 1559: 1557: 1550: 1548: 1543: 1541: 1534:As proposer. 1533: 1532: 1531: 1528: 1526: 1520: 1516: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1489: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1478:Oli Studholme 1475: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1446:Pigsonthewing 1442: 1436: 1434: 1431: 1429: 1424: 1419: 1410: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1388: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1372: 1369: 1368:Jack Merridew 1365: 1361: 1357: 1355: 1350: 1348: 1341: 1339: 1336: 1333: 1329: 1324: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1313:SarekOfVulcan 1311: 1309: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1276: 1272: 1269: 1266: 1261: 1258: 1255: 1250: 1247: 1243: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1228: 1225: 1222: 1218: 1201: 1199: 1196: 1193: 1188: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1175: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1162: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1149: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1113: 1111: 1106: 1104: 1096: 1094: 1091: 1089: 1084: 1079: 1070: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1054: 1051: 1046: 1045: 1031: 1029: 1026: 1023: 1019: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 995: 991: 987: 979: 977: 972: 968: 961: 959: 955: 951: 947: 945: 942: 941: 935: 934: 928: 926: 923: 921: 919: 913: 911: 906: 902: 897: 894: 893: 892: 889: 881: 875: 870: 863: 856: 855: 853: 849: 845: 841: 837: 832: 828: 824: 820: 815: 809: 802: 801: 799: 795: 787: 783: 782: 781: 771: 766: 762: 756: 754: 751: 749: 747: 741: 739: 735: 731: 728: 727: 726: 723: 720: 714: 711: 707: 704: 692: 688: 684: 680: 678: 674: 670: 667: 665: 661: 657: 653: 651: 647: 644: 641: 637: 635: 631: 627: 622:Pigsonthewing 618: 612: 608: 606: 603: 598: 597: 584: 582: 579: 578:Jack Merridew 575: 573: 568: 566: 558: 554: 552: 549: 546: 542: 537: 535: 531: 527: 520: 513: 511: 507: 503: 502:SarekOfVulcan 500: 499: 498: 495: 493: 481: 478: 475: 471: 469: 465: 461: 456: 451: 447: 446: 443: 439: 436: 431: 428: 425: 422: 421: 419: 418: 414: 413: 410: 408: 404: 400: 397: 395: 391: 387: 384: 382: 379: 364: 360: 356: 352: 347: 345: 341: 337: 334: 332: 329: 324: 323: 311: 309: 306: 303: 300: 298: 295: 290: 288: 285: 281: 278: 274: 270: 262: 260: 255: 251: 246: 243: 241: 238: 235: 232: 230: 227: 226: 220: 219: 212: 210: 206: 202: 198: 196: 193: 191: 189: 183: 182: 181: 178: 172: 153: 150: 147: 139: 137: 136: 131: 129: 121: 119: 115: 111: 107: 103: 98: 96: 92: 88: 84: 80: 76: 72: 68: 64: 60: 59: 47: 42: 41: 40: 37: 34: 28: 27: 19: 3225: 3204: 3200: 3142: 3123: 3084:well-emitted 3083: 3064:MartinMcEvoy 3038: 3027:Andy's edits 3014:Andy Mabbett 2992: 2989: 2986: 2979: 2964: 2959:Caesar Salad 2956: 2953: 2859:MartinMcEvoy 2827:Andy's edits 2814:Andy Mabbett 2806: 2798: 2782: 2771: 2761: 2724:non sequitur 2723: 2689: 2677: 2673: 2623: 2619: 2502:UF-hcal-auto 2460: 2450: 2369: 2353: 2293: 2274: 2266: 2241: 2225:Semantic web 2214: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2199: 2166: 2157: 2155: 2153: 2148: 2142: 2140: 2129: 2126:Introduction 2106: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2090: 2086: 2083: 2017: 1962: 1958: 1906:Microformats 1899: 1837: 1813:Andy's edits 1800:Andy Mabbett 1783: 1779: 1766: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1741: 1739: 1682: 1670: 1654: 1622:Andy's edits 1609:Andy Mabbett 1591:Andy's edits 1578:Andy Mabbett 1555: 1539: 1529: 1524: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1454:Andy's edits 1441:Andy Mabbett 1412: 1363: 1359: 1346: 1327: 1281: 1274: 1253: 1236: 1203: 1102: 1072: 1034: 1003: 937: 930: 917: 890: 887: 789: 784:As detailed 779: 745: 724: 718: 715: 700: 681:Per Andy. -- 630:Andy's edits 617:Andy Mabbett 586: 564: 556: 540: 496: 489: 440: 366: 358: 354: 312: 222: 215: 187: 179: 164: 161:View by Xeno 151: 148: 145: 133: 125: 122: 99: 62: 56: 54: 38: 32: 29: 3074:) has made 3023:Andy's talk 2869:) has made 2823:Andy's talk 2546:Barak Obama 2132:Erik Möller 2080:View by FT2 1809:Andy's talk 1746:user agents 1618:Andy's talk 1587:Andy's talk 1450:Andy's talk 967:Gavia immer 848:Barak Obama 761:Gavia immer 709:track down 697:View by Wnt 626:Andy's talk 58:microformat 2795:Conclusion 2772:advantages 2681:authoring. 2341:SlideShare 2315:Wordpress 2257:Swignition 2252:Transformr 1909:HTML/CSS). 1756:. This is 1599:Note that 1540:Sandstein 1347:Sandstein 1103:Sandstein 869:Start date 565:Sandstein 445:Farmbrough 2670:straw men 2660:published 2428:Birthdate 2046:Nihiltres 1998:OrangeDog 1938:microdata 1933:features) 1823:Acather96 1750:Googlebot 1634:OrangeDog 1364:on a wiki 1290:Nihiltres 896:OrangeDog 823:OrangeDog 361:be done. 245:OrangeDog 67:web-based 3187:contribs 3161:Quiddity 3072:contribs 2999:Quiddity 2883:contribs 2867:contribs 2837:Quiddity 2585:Duration 2572:Duration 2408:duration 2395:duration 2366:Concerns 2338:LinkedIn 2329:Facebook 2318:Gravatar 2304:Upcoming 2070:Amalthea 1984:contribs 1854:Quiddity 1722:Quiddity 1565:expanded 1476:Agree — 1464:Quiddity 1403:contribs 1377:Latebird 1164:Davewild 1128:contribs 1059:Dodoïste 1022:Garion96 880:Duration 656:Quiddity 611:this one 399:Davewild 336:Dodoïste 302:Garion96 171:duration 102:Operator 87:software 79:metadata 46:SilkTork 3130:sofixit 3125:simple 2762:exclude 2656:dtstart 2418:Convert 2387:, above 2385:take up 2332:MySpace 2326:Twitter 2271:Take-up 2237:podcast 2202:scraper 2172:Convert 2149:exactly 1994:hRecipe 1927:infobox 1773:sofixit 1742:the web 950:DJSasso 821:links. 557:include 201:DJSasso 3046:(talk) 3017:(User: 2908:Occuli 2817:(User: 2678:pseudo 2674:should 2476:system 2358:Google 2307:Flickr 2301:Yahoo 2298:Google 2206:parser 1917:Zotero 1845:(talk) 1803:(User: 1762:better 1748:, for 1671:should 1662:(talk) 1612:(User: 1581:(User: 1562:21:52 1525:before 1444:(User: 1335:(talk) 1177:Sadads 1025:(talk) 1008:Golbez 846:about 844:WP:VPT 798:system 713:them. 669:Sadads 620:(User: 548:(talk) 526:Occuli 359:should 305:(talk) 284:Krm500 118:Google 3092:KNOWZ 3042:cobra 3039:Cyber 2620:after 2471:coord 2335:Vimeo 2055:edits 2032:comms 2022:fetch 1913:COinS 1841:cobra 1838:Cyber 1708:Unomi 1697:comms 1687:fetch 1658:cobra 1655:Cyber 1496:KNOWZ 1427:comms 1417:fetch 1331:cobra 1328:Cyber 1299:edits 1275:avoid 1254:input 1195:Adler 1087:comms 1077:fetch 986:KNOWZ 808:coord 794:coord 719:every 717:that 544:cobra 541:Cyber 519:coord 477:Adler 269:KNOWZ 156:Views 126:(see 75:XHTML 65:), a 16:< 3215:talk 3183:talk 3165:talk 3152:talk 3110:talk 3096:TALK 3090:HELL 3068:talk 3003:talk 2940:talk 2926:talk 2912:talk 2898:talk 2879:talk 2863:talk 2841:talk 2652:bday 2549:and 2517:and 2461:They 2451:just 2233:JSON 2229:FOAF 2192:Cite 2160:(as 2051:talk 1980:talk 1886:talk 1872:talk 1858:talk 1827:talk 1758:good 1726:talk 1712:talk 1556:xeno 1500:TALK 1494:HELL 1482:talk 1468:talk 1399:talk 1381:talk 1360:then 1317:talk 1295:talk 1221:Talk 1217:Page 1206:Eric 1192:Hans 1181:talk 1168:talk 1155:talk 1151:Deor 1142:talk 1138:DoRD 1124:talk 1063:talk 1012:talk 990:TALK 984:HELL 971:talk 954:talk 918:xeno 786:here 765:talk 746:xeno 734:talk 687:talk 673:talk 660:talk 530:talk 506:talk 474:Hans 464:talk 460:Fram 442:Rich 403:talk 390:talk 386:Deor 351:VRML 340:talk 273:TALK 267:HELL 237:lute 234:Reso 205:talk 188:xeno 132:. A 71:HTML 3159:-- 3060:+1 3021:); 2997:-- 2835:-- 2821:); 2690:and 2624:and 2423:or 2312:BBC 2262:X2V 2227:), 2221:RDF 2217:KML 2187:or 2112:FT2 2096:or 1852:-- 1807:); 1720:-- 1616:); 1585:); 1462:-- 1448:); 1211:Leb 852:USA 730:Wnt 654:-- 648:-- 624:); 374:bli 355:can 83:RSS 3217:) 3209:-- 3189:) 3185:• 3179:DJ 3175:Th 3167:) 3150:- 3133:}} 3127:{{ 3112:) 3104:-- 3070:• 3062:— 3036:-- 3025:; 3005:) 2942:) 2928:) 2914:) 2896:- 2885:) 2881:| 2865:• 2857:— 2843:) 2825:; 2804:. 2598:32 2588:}} 2582:{{ 2575:}} 2569:{{ 2557:}} 2551:{{ 2505:}} 2499:{{ 2474:}} 2468:{{ 2441:}} 2435:{{ 2433:/ 2431:}} 2425:{{ 2421:}} 2415:{{ 2411:}} 2405:{{ 2398:}} 2392:{{ 2231:, 2219:, 2210:do 2195:}} 2189:{{ 2185:}} 2179:{{ 2177:, 2175:}} 2169:{{ 2061:}} 2043:{{ 2005:• 1986:) 1982:• 1976:DJ 1972:Th 1930:}} 1924:{{ 1888:) 1880:-- 1874:) 1866:— 1860:) 1829:) 1811:; 1776:}} 1770:{{ 1728:) 1714:) 1652:-- 1641:• 1620:; 1589:; 1484:) 1470:) 1452:; 1405:) 1401:• 1395:DJ 1391:Th 1383:) 1366:. 1325:-- 1319:) 1305:}} 1287:{{ 1219:| 1183:) 1170:) 1157:) 1144:) 1130:) 1126:• 1120:DJ 1116:Th 1065:) 1040:am 1037:At 1014:) 965:— 956:) 939:―Œ 903:• 882:}} 878:{{ 871:}} 867:{{ 850:, 829:• 810:}} 806:{{ 800:. 796:}} 792:{{ 759:— 736:) 689:) 675:) 662:) 628:; 592:am 589:At 538:-- 532:) 522:}} 516:{{ 508:) 466:) 448:, 405:) 392:) 377:nd 371:ar 368:St 365:- 342:) 318:am 315:At 263:— 252:• 224:―Œ 207:) 174:}} 168:{{ 93:, 63:μF 55:A 3213:( 3181:( 3177:e 3173:— 3163:( 3108:( 3094:▎ 3066:( 3001:( 2938:( 2924:( 2910:( 2861:( 2839:( 2736:. 2596:: 2594:4 2443:. 2059:⚡ 2057:| 2053:| 2049:| 2027:· 2019:— 2009:) 2007:ε 2003:τ 2001:( 1978:( 1974:e 1919:. 1884:( 1870:( 1856:( 1825:( 1724:( 1710:( 1692:· 1684:— 1645:) 1643:ε 1639:τ 1637:( 1552:– 1498:▎ 1480:( 1466:( 1422:· 1414:— 1397:( 1393:e 1379:( 1315:( 1303:⚡ 1301:| 1297:| 1293:| 1223:) 1215:( 1179:( 1166:( 1153:( 1140:( 1136:— 1122:( 1118:e 1082:· 1074:— 1061:( 1049:頭 1043:a 1010:( 988:▎ 973:) 969:( 952:( 948:- 907:) 905:ε 901:τ 899:( 833:) 831:ε 827:τ 825:( 767:) 763:( 732:( 685:( 671:( 658:( 646:C 643:F 640:W 601:頭 595:a 528:( 504:( 462:( 452:. 401:( 388:( 338:( 327:頭 321:a 282:— 279:. 271:▎ 256:) 254:ε 250:τ 248:( 213:- 203:( 199:- 73:/

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Requests for comment/Microformats - Knowledge

Index