I do see this work having value, especially if browsers and client-side apps are going to be able to keep up with the various microformats as they are created and improved.
I don't know much about the history of this kind of discussion, but it sounds useful *if* it can develop standards to ease the deployment of new microformats into the wild... Chris On 3/30/06, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Joe, > > > Gotcha... sorry for the intrusion... didn't want to stir things up.. > > No worries. After all, most of are here *in order* 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! > > Understood. > > > Maybe a sub-list of some sort that Ernie and I moderate? Best, Joe > > Not a bad idea at all. > > Tantek, I realize you may think this a complete waste of time, but > would you be willing to at least quarantine us lunatics in our own > "microformats-schema" mailing list? If nothing else, it provides a > safety valve to prevent the issue from cropping up here > periodically. And who knows? Every 65 million years or so, something > *does* manage to boil the ocean. :-) > > -- Ernie P. > > On Mar 30, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote: > > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
