> before having the arrogance to think they can do better. I'm not proposing that we create a replacement for XML Schema or any of the other great technologies out there... just that we agree on one as the "most frequently used, most standard, most common, baseline, generally accepted but not perfect" way to describe a microformat.
As you note, there are a lot of ways to crack this nut. And this is the fact that I'm having trouble with. Toolmakers, aggregators and innovators are having a tough time with microformats because each new one that pops up requires custom code. Instead of taking a leadership role, choosing one and advocating adoption, you seem to revel in the establishment of many microformats. I'm questioning where the customization should be... at the user level where apps are differentiated? Or at the format level? Why should each format have to start at ground zero, write custom plugins, force users to install them and then gain adoption? Why should Technorati have to write custom code at the format level for each format (of course it needs to write custom code at the business logic layer... that's how we all differentiate). If we agree to a framework, even with all of the limitations of whatever framework we choose, aren't we helping users use microformats more? What about the people from National Geographic who want to set up a format to track wildlife? Should they have to understand XML Schema to take part in the microformat revolution? And what about the people in middle Iowa who like to count hay stacks? Should they have to learn arcane programming languages just to define a two field microformat (hay stack color, hay stack size)? I understand your desire to not standardize on a definition language. Because doing so will inherently create limitations to what can be done. And some things just can't be done with a basic approach. And those things that gain massive adoption probably shouldn't be done with a simple approach. I'm talking about the long tail of microformats... who's looking out for all those users? Users are crying out, on this very mailing list, every single day for an easier way to create and use microformats. Maybe we should see microformats.org as the high-end solution with the flexibility to cover everything. But I think we also need a microformats Light that enables most of the functionality that most of the people are looking for. In the last 5 days I've seen these microformats proposed: Bookmark Exchange Format Attention Microformat Citation Format MicroId Plants Format Work of Art Conversation Following this list you see these requests all the time. This week's performance would predict 260 microformats in a year. And really, if somebody's posting to this mailing list they're probably hyper-plugged in to geekland. If we think about our users... the millions of people we rely on to make all of our geeky stuff actually useful... how many formats do you think are out there with pent-up demand? I'd say... um... a lot. And how many formats has microformats.org created/sanctioned so far throughout its history? I see nine specs. Eleven drafts. Thirty seven exploratory discussions. That's 21% of the requested formats we're seeing on this board. And I'd argue that it's about .01% of the total number of microformats that our users would like to see and be able to use. Think of all of the hobbies out there... all of the interest groups... they all track custom data of some sort. Sure, we don't care about that data type... but it's their life... they're passionate about it. Who's serving them? Who's enabling them? Who's letting them publish so that smart entrepreneurs can leverage that data into the next aggregation phenomenon? To me this user-oriented analysis paints an obvious argument for a format-of-formats. The current microformat mailing list and developer community is doing great work but it's not supporting the users who want a quicker means of creating and using microformats. I could be wrong on this... please prove me so. Microformats should be the plumbing and grease for this thing we all (begrudgingly) call Web 2.0. I want to be clear on one thing: I love the work being done on microformats.org. It is truly valuable and innovative. The process and ideals are wonderful. The people doing the work are collaborative and productive. I am in no way against what's being done. And I appreciate and completely understand Tantek's strong desire to squash my ideas quickly before I distract people from the work already being done. I simply see a big gaping hole in what's being done today. What I've been told is essentially that I can take my hole and go play elsewhere. I don't like hearing that, but there's likely little I can or should do about it. If the users and readers of this list don't agree with my ideas and proposals then I should be kicked off. I promise I won't be a nuisance. But before I go I'd like to ask everybody whether they agree with me in principle: do you think that creating and using microformats should be easier for the average user? If so, do you think that a format-of-formats approach would be helpful wherein a user can simply define ten quick fields with XML, upload the file to their blog server and start blogging? Because there's nothing technically challenging about this proposal. As replies to my message have pointed out there are already numerous technologies that do this. All we need to do is choose one and advocate toolmaker adoption/plugin development (movable type, live journal, drupal, etc). Choosing and advocating is the issue here... not technology. Something is better than nothing to fill this microformat long tail void. The ability for users to quickly define formats and use them to collaborate, meet, find and innovate is a critical next step. I'd like to help it happen. Here or elsewhere. Hopefully here with the support of you, the people who actually understand this stuff. > 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". Interesting. I'd enjoy looking at these. Heck, maybe XMDP is exactly the sort of format-of-formats that I'm looking for. If so, and if you're still actively developing it, why am I arrogant for asking whether something like it exists? > The *one* exception that I know of to this that adherents have had (at least) some amount of success with is RDF. Ok, so that's another possible answer to my original question. Yes, RDF is an option. Again, why am I arrogant for asking about something that has had "some amount of success"? Sorry for the intrusion today. Let me know if you're interested in working on a format-of-formats with me. I've already received a number of kind private messages from people who say this is exactly what they're interested in seeing. Best, Joe Reger _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
