>> We can't expect people to use something for which there is no spec!
And we can't expect a form to be developed when there isn't a spec either. >>>> I don't need to; the simple version works much better for me and is >>>> all I need. Something that tells the average Joe how to author in >>>> simple language with good examples is what will be most beneficial for >>>> most people. >> Agreed. Did I say otherwise? My memory was that you did. If you didn't, then forgive me for bringing it up. >> Indeed. Did I ask for "content for content's sake"? Honestly, as we are now spending more time on discussing our discussions, I am starting to think we are just debating for the purpose debate. I think it's time to wind down (my participation in) this thread. -Mike -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Mabbett Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 5:40 PM To: Microformats Discuss Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] hCalendar spec- no specification included! In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Schinkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >>> I don't think anyone has said that. I certainly don't think people >>> should >be encouraged to begin authoring before first understanding what the >are nad are not "allowed" to do (unless by "authoring" you mean "fill >in a form and let a machine do the authoring for you") > >A form would be nice, It might be; note that I wasn't calling for one. > but it takes time to develop and we can't expect they will be >developed before people are interested. We can't expect people to use something for which there is no spec! [...] >This is just like Creative Commons where they have the human readable >license and then you can see the lawyese if you really want. I've never >even looked at the lawyered one, have you? Yup. > I don't need to; the simple version works much better for me and is >all I need. Something that tells the average Joe how to author in >simple language with good examples is what will be most beneficial for >most people. Agreed. Did I say otherwise? >>> Reasonable, but it needs some content, so as not to appear dry and >unwelcoming. > >Not to be contrary, but see "How Users Read on the Web[1]." What, again? > Content for content sake is less than useful. Indeed. Did I ask for "content for content's sake"? >>> Once they standard is set, the brainstorming (and related examples) >>> is >only of archival interest. > >Note that I said my list was just a set to start discussion Note that I was discussing it. >>> I note that your list does not include an explanation of Semantic >XHTML... > >Again, as I said, my list was just a set to start discussion... Note that I wasn't criticising you for omitting it. -- Andy Mabbett Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/> Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk> _______________________________________________ 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
