On Dec 11, 2006, at 11:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian Suda wrote:
Microformats are meant as building blocks and they should be
able to be using independantly and together...
If that is true, how can it be achieved without a disambiguation
conventions
to keep official Microformats from conflicting with similar
"techniques."
Or is it the view of the Microformat community that Microformats
will keep
it's house clean and, because Microformats are the "anointed" ones
that it
just "sucks to be the other guy?"
Since Microformats (capital-M) are based on research of current
practice, I
think it's probably more helpful to think of techniques as proto-
Microformats.
If the community is slow to develop a format that makes sense, we often
encourage authors to develop their own systems, which then can inform
how a
format will function in the wild. This is where documentation and the
oft-belabored "process" becomes powerful. Although it can be annoying
for
early-adopters and people who need solutions now, it creates strong
formats
once the issues are solidified.
--
Ryan Cannon
Interactive Developer
MSI Student, School of Information
University of Michigan
http://RyanCannon.com
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
