Yeah, I didn't really think that this topic could be solved (or even discussed) herein.
It's a nice pipedream, but I do agree falls outside the boundaries of the achieveable goals that we've set out w/ microformats. Chris On 3/30/06, Paul Bryson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Tantek Ç elik" wrote... > > 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. > > Why aren't they just using DTD or SML Schema for this? That was the first > thing I thought of when Joe first posted. > > > Atamido > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
