>> Otherwise, I think the simplest is that I remove your vote from the final results.
Don't remove my vote! :) I didn't vote for "Currency unit/denomination used identification" in order to get up to four, (at least one) others did. -Mike -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Guillaume Lebleu Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:14 PM To: Microformats Discuss Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] currency quickpoll results and suggested next step Mike Schinkel wrote: > My opinion is this sounds like a great idea! Will you be doing the > edit on the current proposal? > yes, I intend to do before the end of this week. > I am surprised however at the number of people who felt "Currency > unit/denomination used identification" was important and it seems like > an edge case to me. I'm hoping that this become an optional aspect as > opposed to always required, and the same with amount, actually. > I think that you can change your vote (assuming your re-vote from the same machine and cookies are one and haven't been erased). Let me know. Otherwise, I think the simplest is that I remove your vote from the final results. > Also, will the current spec worry about the other concerns so as not > to eliminate the possibility of including them later, or by asking am > I just removing the benefit of "focusing on the top 3" by asking? > I suggest the current spec focuses on the top 3. The future will be moved to a "2.0" page. Any concern that some aspects of the 1.0 spec are not be forward-compatible with 2.0 is relevant for 1.0. Guillaume _______________________________________________ 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
