On Feb 2, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Ryan King wrote:
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 lifecycle
Indeed, 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
[hit send to early]
As I was saying... I don't think you can really extricate the process
from the results. Certainly the philosophy/process could be useful in
many contexts. Of course, I'd love to be wrong here.
-ryan
--
Ryan King
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
