Hi David,
On Dec 31, 2005, at 9:58 AM, David Janes -- BlogMatrix wrote:
I don't even have the slightest idea how to respond to this. I've been
working on hAtom since August (hardly a rush), constantly soliciting
feedback, documenting progress and descions, recently providing
code, and so forth. Now suddenly a new there's some new microformat
principles -- not appearing on the Wiki in any obvious place or
(particularly) the process page.
I certainly affirm your efforts to play by the rules and solicit
input. I think what Tantek may be reacting to was the perceived
pressure to "formalize" hAtom as an official microformat. I think
you've done a fantastic job of documenting 'hAtom' per se, but there
are valid concerns about taking it to the next level.
I have no issue renaming elements in hAtom, as long as there's a
microformats process that I'm actually following -- something that
I've
seriously attempt to do since the second week I've been on this
list. I'm assuming the process is driven by documentation and
discussion, and not by personality.
I think Tantek's principles are useful, and I agree they should be on
the wiki. Are they? I'm not sure:
Just because other standards keep inventing new terms for the same
thing,
doesn't mean we should.
We should actively AVOID inventing new terms for the same thing,
even if
those "new terms" come from other standards.
Thanks for all your efforts.
-- Ernie P.
David
PS. Does someone want to fill in the RSS feed structure? It's
basically the same as Atom, with different terminology.
Tantek Çelik wrote:
Though I definitely understand (and applaud) the eagerness to get
an hAtom
format defined, things have definitely been rushed a bit, and
there are
holes in the background research necessary to do a good job. Holes
which, if
they were filled, would most likely result in quite a few changes
to the
hAtom proposal.
For example:
http://microformats.org/wiki/blog-post-formats
1. The formats page has yet to describe "basic structure of an RSS
document". This is a glaring hole. Given how much more
established RSS 2.0
is over Atom in the space of "syndication", it needs to be taken a
lot more
seriously than that.
2. The formats page omits another old "blog post" standard -
VJOURNAL. I
believe Outlook supports VJOURNAL, and if so, greatly outnumbers
all RSS
readers combined. I've at least added a starter section for
VJOURNAL:
http://microformats.org/wiki/blog-post-formats#VJOURNAL
One of the larger points here to consider is:
Just because other standards keep inventing new terms for the same
thing,
doesn't mean we should.
Who knows why they invented new terms? The simplest explanation
is that
they just didn't know any better. Did they do as much research into
existing standards? If so, then you should be able to find URLs to
that
research which we should eagerly reuse.
We should actively AVOID inventing new terms for the same thing,
even if
those "new terms" come from other standards.
The utility of hAtom comes from the 1:1 correspondence of Atom
elements to
hAtom class names. This does not mean that the names have to be
the same. In fact, we should
be preferring names from previous microformats, and even previous
standards
over new names introduced by Atom.
As long as it is made clear which hAtom class name translates into
which
Atom element name, the goal of creating a 1:1 representation of
hAtom in
XHTML is achieved.
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
