On 2/2/06 1:57 PM, "Christopher St John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/2/06, Ryan King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> 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. >> > > In theory, most spec processes are supposed to start with a review of > existing specs and existing usage. In that sense, microformats is not > different. Actually, this is one of the biggest, most important differences of microformats as compared to other spec processes. Other spec processses: review existing specs and usage of those specs Microformats: FIRST review existing usage on the web. Microformats places existing usage ABOVE existing specs, and this is a very important difference from other spec processes. > What's different is that people here take it seriously. The > people are the difference. I certainly agree that the people are the difference. However, there are plenty of people at W3C and IETF etc. that take their respective processes quite seriously as well. I don't think you inteded a slight there, but I just want to be clear that no such slight should have been intended. > That isn't to say being very clear in the docs isn't helpful. The > microformats process is different in some ways, and it's worth > making clear, but I think for most people experiencing is believing. Indeed. The best way of learning is doing. Thanks, Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
