Chris, The perceived value that you see is exactly why this whole topic is such a massive trap.
It is very seductive (especially to programmers) to think that you can define a format for formats (a meta-format shall we say), *once*, then implement *only that*, then have every specific format magically work. In practice, this never[*] happens. It's been tried *numerous* times. DTD, XML Schema, etc. In practice, key portions/features of really *useful* specific formats (like HTML) *always* fall outside of the meta-format, and *must* be specified in prose of a specification. This is specifically why I designed XMDP to be to absolute minimum of what is necessary to define/recognize a vocabulary. I'm working on some extensions for includes (to transclude multiple XMDP profiles or portions thereof into a single profile), but other than that, I consider XMDP "done". In the spirit of "don't reinvent what you can re-use", anyone seriously desiring to work on a format-of-formats should *first* teach themselves DTD, and XML Schema *at a minimum*, before having the arrogance to think they can do better. And yes, exploring a format-of-formats is very much off topic and not just outside, but *against* the philosophies and principles of microformats. http://microformats.org/wiki/microformats Thanks, Tantek [*]The *one* exception that I know of to this that adherents have had (at least) some amount of success with is RDF. If you're really interested in generic format-of-formats type discussions and all the abstractions present therein, there is already a community that has far more experience and understanding and desire in that space than the microformats community. On 3/30/06 11:41 AM, "Chris Messina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
