On 9/12/07 8:53 AM, "Scott Reynen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2007, at 9:24 AM, Michael Smethurst wrote: > >> Would it not be better for ufs to standardise markup based on the >> domain >> model than waste time wading through flakey html? [Perhaps] > > I don't believe looking at current publishing practices is a waste of > time at all. Much the opposite, I think it's the most important part > of the process. Domain models that don't account for what is > published on the real web tend to be less useful on the real web. You're both right. Michael, the "gather real world examples" for analysis step of the process is specifically focusing on the *data* published, and NOT the patterns (or lack thereof) of markup. This is why the *-examples step says: "Document the implicit schemas that the content examples imply." Every word in that sentence matters. *implicit* schemas, that is, you have to look at the *content* of the examples and note what abstract notions/fields/properties that people are publishing. That's very deliberate in that it is MUCH less important (if at all) what flakey html is being used. Scott is right in that analysis of current publishing practices helps us prioritize what problems are worth solving (i.e. there is already demonstrated incentive for people to publish such information) as opposed to what problems are purely theoretical, or wishful thinking (e.g. if only everyone would publish metadata ABC then we could build applications XYZ). In fact, I have seen this question asked (or this step of the process misinterpreted regarding example data vs example markup) sufficient times that I think this merits documentation as an FAQ. Might as well start with this one. <http://microformats.org/wiki/process-faq#Why_waste_time_wading_through_flak ey_HTML> Thanks, Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list microformats-new@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
