Tantek, your clarification is something that might be a good thing to have written up on the microformats web site, the wiki, etc. It's concise and makes a good "bullet point" to keep in mind when discussing/evangelizing microformats to others who might not be quite in step with the rest of us.
Pat On 10/1/06, Tantek Çelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
These are all good recommendations. There are a couple of higher level things from Roger's original email that I wanted to clear up though. Note that the XOXO conversion that Brian and David are talking about will convert *any* XML into XOXO which is *a* microformat, rather than just *an* XML *document* to *a* microformat. That being said, you can always just use semantic (X)HTML. http://microformats.org/wiki/semantic-xhtml Note that microformats use semantic XHTML, but not all use of semantic XHTML are microformats. Web designers and authors are using semantic XHTML everyday without using microformats, and that's perfectly fine. They are not trying to create standards and interoperably/automatically exchange data with each other. They are simply expressing the semantics of their documents. Whereas microformats follow a specific process and are intended to provide a way for publishers worldwide to easily interoperably exchange simple bits of data. http://microformats.org/wiki/process This distinction between "semantic XHTML" and "microformats" is very important to understand and is often confused - I've even seen W3C staff themselves call microformats "just using good class names", which is incorrect. (Using good class names is simply one of the practices of semantic XHTML). Thanks, Tantek
-- Pat Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.southwestern.edu/~ramseyp
_______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
