Scott Reynen ha scritto: > Abramo Bagnara wrote: > >> I feel a subtle hostility wrt this improvement attempt, I'm wrong? > > > I suspect many here are tired of fending off attempt after attempt at > generalization, as such attempts tend to come at a cost of simplicity > (and therefor adoption).
About simplicity I guess that a rather reliable way to measure it is to compare stylesheet needed for data extraction. > Less than a month ago [1], Tantek wrote: > >> microformats are not: >> * infinitely extensible and open-ended >> * a panacea for all taxonomies, ontologies, and other such >> abstractions >> * defining the whole world, or even just boiling the ocean >> >> So yes, such "general purpose" or "universality" is an explicit NON- >> goal. > > > You can read through the archives for a few dozen explanations of this > perspective. I think that "general purpose" and "universality" sacrificing simplicity is a bad thing, but can we agree that universality *with* simplicity is a benefit? -- Abramo Bagnara mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Opera Unica Phone: +39.0546.656023 Via Emilia Interna, 140 48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
