On Mar 24, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Scott
Reynen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Do we need to clarify that we're not talking about plastic plants or
photos of plants also?
Is that really the level of debate, here?
Alright, let's slow down a bit here.
I've so far stayed out of the discussion about a plant microformat,
mostly because I don't really care about talking about plants on the
Web.
Let's take a step back and think about whether a microformat for
plants is worthwhile–
Microformats are solutions to common problems, which means they often
end up being low hanging fruit.
That doesn't mean, however, that all low-hanging-fruit is a common
problem and a worthwhile effort the community to undertake.
I understand that there are some people, for whom, plants are an
important part of the Web for them. But, for me (and I suspect many
others), there are a hundred more important things to work on. We
already have a number of microformats, in many states of
completeness. I'm going to focus my energy on those– building tools
and test cases for them, explaining them to people and building
consensus around them.
I can't speak for others' time, but mine needs to be spent on more
pressing matters. And I could use help on them. Lots of help. (hint,
hint, nudge, nudge)
Also, on a related note, we need to be very careful about creating
new microformats– remember microformats are not appropriate for every
use case.
-ryan
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
