On Oct 30, 2006, at 4:33 AM, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
Currently, I can't name a single IM client that uses semanticful HTML
for logging. In fact, there's been a trend *away* from HTML lately.
Microformats are supposed to represent what exists in the wild, no?
Whatever the validity of Chris's points about redundancy or future
directions, isn't the idea that uFs are supposed to represent what's
in the wild overriding?
Yes, hence why I said "It may not be part of 80% or initial-draft use
cases, but if it starts happening, I'll be all for it."
I'm not saying that we as a community should design microformats
specifically for the purpose of data storage. I'm saying we shouldn't
stand against their eventual propogation into that arena, becase they
could be useful there too.
Sure, I'm not saying (despite the title of my thread :P) that no uF
should be used for data storage, ever. chat logs, at this point, seem
to be a well solved problem using XML, and I see no reason for
microformats to butt their heads in at this point. But if the winds
change and more people start using HTML in a semanticful way to store
logs, then by all means, we should change too.
-Colin
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
