On Feb 2, 2006, at 1:16 PM, David Osolkowski wrote:
On 2/2/06, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Review/revise desired pathways for: New users learning about microformats Microformat lifecycleIndeed, it does seem that people new to microformats are often either entirely unaware of or somewhat confused about the process that exists to create a microformat. There have been a few instances of a proposal for a new microformat being sent to the list with, for example, no indication of current behavior or formats.
Yes, this is a common occurrence. However, I just want to point out that it has been getting better. When we first started microformats.org, it seemed like half of the people joining this list would propose a new format almost instantly. We've not got it down to about 1/10 or so. :-D
This is not an accusation; I recall several people talking about how the microformats process is a different way of doing things, thus it is reasonable to expect people will be unfamiliar with it.
Certainly.
Microformats-the-formats have gotten a lot of recognition, but microformats-the-process seems to be languishing a bit, when in fact they are significantly connected. I think we can do something about that. At the least, separate but clearly related (probably containing the word "micro") names to disambiguate the two concepts could be useful.
I'd be interesting to hear any proposals you have here. However, I'm not sure you could really extricate
-- Ryan King [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
