In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Benjamin
West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>> It reflects current publishing practice as precisely and completely as
>> possible ...
>I'm still wondering how it does so.
I'm not sure what else I can tell you.
Have you find a reference to a living thing, in the context of biology
or taxonomy, which the proposal does not fit?
>> It provides classes which have a 1-1 relationship with the attributes of
>> living things, as used in taxonomy, and as expressed taxonomically, on
>> the websites quoted.
>>
>Naming is one part. Structure is another. I'm not seeing anything
>actually published that resembles the structure proposed. How did you
>arrive at the structure being proposed?
The structure (which is very flat) is also dictated by the rules of
taxonomy.
>These two still remain and are, in my estimation, more important than
>the how the proposal reflects publishing, because I believe the
>following is a pre-requisite to creating a proposal:
>* Where is the analysis for many of the examples' markup?
What analysis would you like?
>* Where is the list of common publishing behaviours?
What do you mean by "common publishing behaviours", that isn't already
provided in the examples listed?
Oh, and next time you feel the need to accuse me of editing a wiki page
"on behalf of another user", kindly check the page history, first. Thank
you.
--
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
