Hi Andy,
On Oct 26, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dr.
Ernie Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
As long as you don't call it a microformat, feel free to experiment.
:-)
Why shouldn't he call it a microformat?
Sorry, I may have conflated too many issues. The point I wanted to
make (which I communicated poorly) is:
a) If he's committed to marking up *invisible* metadata that is
*only* for machine consumption, then [IMHO] that's beyond the scope
of what this group was constituted to do.
b) Conversely, if he's unsure whether the metadata *has* to be
invisible, then perhaps this is still a worthwhile discussion.
c) Either way, he's welcome to experiment with microformat-derived ideas
d) However, if the end result is *outside* the scope of how we as a
community understand microformats, don't expect to get a lot of
official support
e) In particular, it would be confusing for him to call his proposal
a "microformat" if it did not go through the documented microformat
process
http://microformats.org/wiki/process
I apologize if that came across as needlessly confrontational.
Best,
-- Ernie P.
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
