Scott Reynen wrote: > On May 30, 2006, at 1:25 PM, Elias Torres wrote: > >> We could gain more if we gave it a shot at working >> together by leveraging the unbelievable momentum uFs have and the more >> general goals of RDFa even though in the end we might end up with *A* >> totally different specification that what either of the current >> proposals started as in their respective organizations. > > I think the disconnect right now is that the process of microformat > development requires real-world implementations on which to make > decisions, and RDFa has no real-world implementations. Until RDFa has > real-world implementations, it's not likely to influence the direction > of microformat development based on a thusfar entirely theoretical > format. If and when RDFa has real-world implementations, the process of > microformat development ensures that those will be taken into account > just like other real-world implementations (e.g. vcard, vcalendar, etc.) > have influenced microformat development in the past. So there is no > standards war to talk about yet, and it's not at all clear there ever > will be. >
I'm missing your point Scott. If what you refer to as real-world implementation is (vcard, vcalendar, etc), then RDFa draws from them just as well uF does. For example, Dan Conolly has been working on Calendar + RDF for a very long time [1] and has been using RDF to solve real life problems. Now if you mean GreaseMonkey scripts or Brian Suda's X2V work, that's not a major problem, I can do one if it'd help us making progress. This is just another reason why I think we are working at reaching very similar goals and working together early will be beneficial to the web. [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/ _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
