Thanks for all of your comments.
My current take is this:
- I will be continuing to develop this format using suggested route.
- I will be following this group and contributing if approriate (I
think microformats is a good solution to a real problem).
- I will ask this group periodically for
On 3/23/06, Brian Suda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the same vein as classification of plants, we might want to explore
making a simple microformat that mimics the classification system of
the taxonomy of organizims. Kingdom-Phylum-...Family-Species. That
way additional microformats (such as
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], mark
gibbons [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I am developing a microformat proposal for plants.
What do you mean by plants? Garden plants? Plants as studied by
botanists? Plant-material, such as cut flowers, or planks of timber?
--
Andy Mabbett
Say NO! to
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian
Suda [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
title=homosapien
ITYM Homo sapiens (two words, capital H, closing s)
--
Andy Mabbett
Say NO! to compulsory ID Cards: http://www.no2id.net/
Free Our Data: http://www.freeourdata.org.uk
On Mar 24, 2006, at 12:08 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
What do you mean by plants? Garden plants? Plants as studied by
botanists? Plant-material, such as cut flowers, or planks of timber?
Is there really any ambiguity here? The former two are the same
thing, no? Does a plant become something
On Mar 24, 2006, at 11:45 AM, Scott Reynen wrote:
On Mar 24, 2006, at 12:08 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
What do you mean by plants? Garden plants? Plants as studied by
botanists? Plant-material, such as cut flowers, or planks of timber?
Is there really any ambiguity here? The former two are
Breton Blake Slivka wrote...
However, a species classification microformat would fit right in with the
other broadly applicable microformats on microformats.org.
Indeed. Creating a more generalized microformat, that can be specifically
applied to plants, seems like a pretty good idea. This
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott
Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
What do you mean by plants? Garden plants? Plants as studied by
botanists? Plant-material, such as cut flowers, or planks of timber?
Is there really any ambiguity here? The former two are the same
thing, no? Does a plant
On Mar 24, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Scott
Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Do we need to clarify that we're not talking about plastic plants or
photos of plants also?
Is that really the level of debate, here?
Alright, let's slow down a bit here.
Mark,
Good job starting, but you will want to make your examples a little more
descriptive. For instance, not just listing the types of information on a
site, but how that information is displayed.
img src=/graphics/icons/DBluFore_AspSun.gif alt=Sunshine Levels -
Sunfont class=ForeLobetc.
On Mar 24, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Ryan King wrote:
Let's take a step back and think about whether a microformat for
plants is worthwhile–
Microformats are solutions to common problems, which means they often
end up being low hanging fruit.
That doesn't mean, however, that all low-hanging-fruit
Skipping back a few posts...
On 3/23/06, Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 23, 2006, at 8:31 PM, Breton Blake Slivka wrote:
My thought is that it's a very specific microformat, which sort of
bucks the trend of very broadly applicable microformats thus far
defined and set as
On Mar 24, 2006, at 4:04 PM, Ryan King wrote:
I've so far stayed out of the discussion about a plant microformat,
mostly because I don't really care about talking about plants on
the Web.
Let's take a step back and think about whether a microformat for
plants is worthwhile–
We should
On Mar 23, 2006, at 7:20 AM, mark gibbons wrote:
Hi,
I am developing a microformat proposal for plants. Please take a look
and join in if you wish.
http://microformats.org/wiki/plant-examples
I don't understand what problem this microformat would solve. The
stated problem seems to be
Hi,
I don't understand what problem this microformat would solve. The
stated problem seems to be basically there's no microformat, which
doesn't really explain why there should be.
Thanks for the reply Scott.
I would be the first to admit it is a niche, but here would be a few
scenarios
On Mar 23, 2006, at 8:12 AM, mark gibbons wrote:
I would be the first to admit it is a niche, but here would be a few
scenarios where I can see this as useful.
- Collection of distributed plant information from the web into larger
plant databases.
- Plant catalogs can be published by retailers
On Mar 23, 2006, at 3:43 PM, Paul Bryson wrote:
but it doesn't have the major problem of identification with the
latin
terms acting as unique IDs.
Is there any page that discusses the potential issues of using IDs in
microformats?
Oh, I didn't mean ID attributes - just something to
I'm not a botanist, so i don't know all the intricacy of plants, but
as with all new microformats it is suggested that you get examples
from other sites and how they describe plants. These means that you
will need to collect what properties other sites use such as, TYPE,
WEATHER, WATER, AMOUNT OF
Brian, if you look at the wiki, it would seem that he already has done
much of what you list.
I'm with you so far as defining the simpler microformat first for the
Latin classification system.
My thought is that it's a very specific microformat, which sort of bucks
the trend of very broadly
On Mar 23, 2006, at 8:31 PM, Breton Blake Slivka wrote:
Brian, if you look at the wiki, it would seem that he already has
done much of what you list.
I'm with you so far as defining the simpler microformat first for
the Latin classification system.
My thought is that it's a very specific
20 matches
Mail list logo
