Gotcha... sorry for the intrusion... didn't want to stir things up.. it certainly is a big challenge. A gentleman on SB recommended Microcontent Description (MCD) as a starting point. Ernie, if you're up for it, I'd be interested in getting something going. I think this list is the place to do it but I certainly respect Tantak's desire to avoid the quagmire! Maybe a sub-list of some sort that Ernie and I moderate? Best, Joe
On 3/30/06, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Joe, > > > Is this format-of-formats already done? If so, I apologize, can you > > point me to it? If not, what has been done and would it be premature > > for me to start work on such a draft specification (after much > > feedback from everybody here, of course)? > > This is actually an FAQ, and a fairly tricky one at that, since it is > isomorphic to the problem of a "general purpose parser." I believe > Tantek has declared that discussion off-topic for this list, since it > has the potential to be a never-ending rathole. However, I can't > find such a statement on the FAQ: > > http://microformats.org/wiki/faq#Basic_Microformat_Questions > > Tantek, is that in fact the policy, and is it documented somewhere? > > That said, there are a few of us crazy enough to want to try, which > I'm open to doing off-list if you're interested... > > -- Ernie P. > > > On Mar 30, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote: > > > Hi All! > > > > I've been lurking for a while and truly appreciate all of the great > > work going into microformats right now! > > > > I saw a message on the Structured Blogging mailing list that got me > > thinking about a format-of-formats... a standard way to describe a > > format. My thoughts are here: > > > > http://www.joereger.com/entry-logid7-eventid5003-Structured- > > Blogging-FormatofFormats.log > > > > As I posted, I realized that I haven't checked in with Tantek and > > others regarding the concept of a format-of-formats. I've seen a lot > > of Atom/RDF used. I was a proponent of XML Schema a while back. I've > > been dabbling with Xforms. XUL is out there. > > > > My basic position is that we should be able to provide a common format > > for the description of a microformat. By creating a standard to > > describe the formats we free toolmakers to create an implementation > > and then be done with it. Once we have support from WordPress, MT, > > Drupal, LJ, etc then we can spawn microformats more quickly, requiring > > little or no development on the toolmaker part. Toolmakers will > > compete by providing advanced features in their implementation (like > > CSS override hooks, see blog post). Aggregators like > > Technorati/PubSub will be able to build advanced functionality on top > > of specific formats and will compete at that level. For example, > > Technorati may create Technorati Music while PubSub may create PubSub > > Movies... their investment differentiates and end-users win. > > > > Is this format-of-formats already done? If so, I apologize, can you > > point me to it? If not, what has been done and would it be premature > > for me to start work on such a draft specification (after much > > feedback from everybody here, of course)? > > > > Thanks for getting me up to speed! Keep up the great work! > > > > Best, > > > > Joe Reger > > _______________________________________________ > > microformats-discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > microformats-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss > _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
