On 1/4/06 1:23 PM, "Scott Reynen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tantek Çelik wrote: > >> Copying it though violates the DRY principle and unnecessarily >> introduces a >> risk of introducing errors/changes from the spec. > > Are we really applying the DRY principle to documentation? To specification, in particular. > Nobody > uses rel-bookmark because nobody knows about it because nobody reads > W3C specs in their entirety. Or certainly the 80% don't :) > I think the benefits of explaining the > elements of meaningful XHTML [1] clearly outweigh the risks of > straying from the spec. If we don't understand a section of the spec > well enough to explain it to others, how can we expect to build > microformats on top of XHTML? > > [1] http://tantek.com/presentations/2005/03/elementsofxhtml/ If you're talking about tutorials, then yes, you are absolutely correct, the more the merrier, with each hopefully improving on those that came before it. >> We should not duplicate things from other specs, we should >> reference them. > > False dichotomy. We can both reference them and further explain them > within the contexts of microformats. Yes. >> Thus perhaps we need a required reading section where we at least >> list: >> Specifications: >> - HTML 4.01: http://w3.org/tr/html401 >> - XHTML 1.0: http://w3.org/tr/xhtml1 > > Those two specs are hundreds of pages long. That's a hefty > prerequisite to impose on someone who just wants to make their weblog > markup a bit more semantic. I should have been more clear. We need a required reading section for anyone wishing to work on a new microformat. For users of course we want easier tools and documentation. Hence the creators and examples. >> Alternatively, one might say that the use of rel="bookmark" for blog >> permalinks is worthy of documenting as an explicit example, since >> the HTML 4.01 spec makes no reference to blogs or permalinks. > > I would lean this way, but I don't think this conversation is worth > having until a rel-bookmark wiki page actually exists. Right now > we're discussing whether or not a hypothetical explanation of rel- > bookmark is better than the W3C explanation. An explanation is different from a specification. I would welcome a tutorial on rel-bookmark on microformats.org -- let's just be very clear that it is NOT a new microformat, nor would it be a specification. Perhaps we could call it: http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-bookmark-tutorial Other suggestions for indicating that something is a explicitly an informative tutorial rather than a specification (I'm not saying we have to always append "-tutorial", but naming conventions tend to be useful, especially when one could easily confuse a /wiki/rel-bookmark page as being a specification since the URL looks like other /wiki/rel-* pages). Thanks for the clarification Scott, Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
