Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

why don't you use an HR tag, instead of the ong line of underscores in the example?

I didn't use an <hr /> because I think it would make it more difficult for beginners to understand the example.

The example is suppose to show the reader how to use Microformats. I didn't want to confuse them with a bunch of extra HTML markup. And decided to just keep things simple. That's why I did all that markup inside a set of <pre> tags... and not a complex layout with <table>'s, <div>'s, etc.

--Charles Iliya Krempeaux 09:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And ASCII art on webpages is so much "more aesthetically pleasing". It irradiates that quaint early 80s feeling.

This page and the singular redirect to it should be swapped. Andy Mabbett 19:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Ruud 19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the following from the article:

Microformats were anticipated in the original design of HTML. However, early efforts to create semantic links using the rel and rev attributes used a "separate, non-URL, name space and binding mechanism for link types similar to MIME, and this was a lot of overhead. The first proposals that allowed link types to be looked up online, with only a few hardwired defaults, much as plugins work, in early 1995, seemed to be misunderstood, with some HTML-WG participants incapable of differentiating the target from the type. The proposals originating at this time tended to emphasize presentation of the links, and stuck to a few static types that could be implemented in browsers, like "embed".

As RDF evolved, it became clearer that the original rel and rev approach had merits: it was lower overhead, required no data type definitions or upper ontology.

It's partly uncited (and the citations given are to mailing list posts), overly technical, and seems to contain opinion. Andy Mabbett 19:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are class name collisions handled? Where you want to use a microformat class name but not because it's part of the microformat? — Omegatron 03:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The likelihood of someone needing to use, say, "fn" inside a class of "vcard" is slight; but there are profiles which can be included in the head element. Further discussion of this issue is archived via the uFs wiki. Andy Mabbett 09:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link? — Omegatron 13:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - it's scattered all over the place, including the mailing list archives (which are downloadable in Berkeley format) Andy Mabbett 14:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messed up my edit summary, which should have said "not on the talk page".

I don't see the asserted requests for an additional explanation of microformats in the intro. Yes, the concept needs to be explained a bit, but code tags are almost always a bad idea in the introductory article summary. I'm not keen on the article being full of angle brackets anyway, but better in the body than in the intro. Chris Cunningham 20:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one such example. I'm not sure what you mean by "geotags may be a pet project", or how that's relevant. Nor can I see why code tags (sic), or for that matter angle brackets, are a "bad idea" in an article specifically about a mark-up technique. Andy Mabbett 21:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I've noticed is that our articles on microformats seem to be too tightly integrated with the WikiProject on microformats; the two should be kept distinct. Extra examples, an example in the intro, how-to guides etc. would be helpful in the Wikipedia: namespace, but this article and the other articles in mainspace should stick to encyclopedic coverage only. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 01:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way do you think they're "integrated"? Examples of how to apply a mark-up technique in an article about that technique are "encyclopedic coverage". Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Krimpet said, there's a big difference between guiding people on how to use templates to improve articles in the project namespace and doing so in articles. Prescriptive information is extremely valuable, but it's not what the article namespace is for. As for the pet project stuff, I would think it obvious that comments on a template discussion page are not directly indicative of a flaw in the article's coverage. I couldn't teach myself Java using Java (programming language), but I wouldn't suggest that this is a problem with the article. Encyclopaedic does not mean all-encompassing. Chris Cunningham 15:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is and has been nothing on the article, about templates. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used the template:Infobox_Company at this article Paid On Results. The template:Infobox_Company talks about the support of the hCard microformat, so I added parameters like fn, street-address , locality, postal-code, county-name and tel to it. When I saved it, none of the parameters showed up. I checked the Infobox_Company template code and saw that it does not support any of those parameters. I assume the misleading description comes from an template that is used by the template. How is that whole thing supposed to work? Thanks --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 00:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only attribute it seems to support is "org". So yeah, some work is needed on the templates. Chris Cunningham 11:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]