On 3/23/06, Breton Blake Slivka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brian, if you look at the wiki, it would seem that he already has done much > of what you list.
--- correct, he has certainly gotten a good start. Things to consider will be the "data types" with hReview they looked at all the different types of rating and decided to go with a 5 Star rating. They did not pull this out of thin air, it came from research into how people where already publishing data. For this plant-microformat, or any microformat, there needs to be a discussion about, not only the properties, but also their values. Will plants be measured in Metric or Imperial systems? etc. etc. I encourage anyone to keep adding examples to the list, not only example pages, but actual layouts and texts of examples. Basically, "Show me what a plant bio looks like." > If one desires to propose a new format for something, it is much easier to > build support if there are already tools available which can make use of it. > That is, make the plant information aggregator *first*, /then/ market the > format. This is a big chicken and the egg kind of run-around. Many people are not happy at Large Standards bodies because they spend years and years putting everything and the kitchen sink into the format. When they go to market it, no one uses it. Microformats' goal is to try and find data already out there and model things off real world examples. -brian -- brian suda http://suda.co.uk _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
