On Dec 5, 2006, at 10:48 AM, S. Sriram wrote:
From: "Mike Schinkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-
December/00
8462.html
I wonder if his issues can be addressed?
Ian said:
"class", "rel", and "profile" are the extension mechanism for HTML
And Elias said:
We have tried using microformats as an extension mechanism for HTML
That response confuses the issues here. Ian pointed out the only
allowed methods of extending HTML and said that microformats use
these methods. That Elias is unsatisfied with these methods is a
problem with HTML, not with microformats. We're not in charge of
HTML here.
How about a distributed parser-discovery service
More specifically a YADIS discovered JSON returning uf-specific
parser:
1. Place an entry on the uf-authored page detailing the ufs-used
<meta name="ufs-used" content="hreveiew hatom hwidget" />
As Ian mentioned in the message Elias responded to, HTML already has
this functionality with profile headers:
http://microformats.org/wiki/profile-uris
2. Place a yadiservices discovery pointer to where parser(s)
maybe found, (on the same uf-authored page)
<meta name="ufs-used" content="hreveiew hatom hwidget" />
<meta http-equiv="X-YADIS-Location" content="http://
www.blahblah.com/path/to/yadis-file" />
3. add parser service data to the (existing) yadis file pointed to
within
the uf-authored page.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xrds:XRDS xmlns:xrds="xri://$xrds" xmlns="xri://$xrd*($v*2.0)"><XRD>
<Service>
<Type>http://openid.net/signon/1.0</Type>
<URI>http://www.livejournal.com/openid/server.bml</URI>
</Service>
<Service>
<Type>http://microformats.org/hreview/1.0</Type>
<URI>http://www.blah.com/path/to/uf2json-parser</URI>
</Service>
<Service>
<Type>http://mysite.com/hwidget/1.0</Type>
<URI>http://www.mysite.com/path/to/uf2json-parser</URI>
</Service>
</XRD></xrds:XRDS>
4. ..domain../path/to/uf2json-parser is a REST-call that is passed
a 'uf-snippet' and returns a JSON object.
Browsers that are uf-aware would call the parser with the uf-snippet,
and than hand of the JSON to the storing module.
CONS: The parser needs to be 'hosted', incurring bandwidth costs.
PROS: Roll your own microformat and parser - or - *leave your html
as is and just build a parser for it and point tothe parser from
within the page.*
What you've described above is a process for converting all
microformats to JSON, but that doesn't really solve the problem Elias
described. It just changes the format. Each individual parser still
needs to figure out what the JSON means, where before they had to
figure out what the HTML means.
In HTML or JSON, new formats need new parsers, which must be written
by someone. Elias is coming from an RDF background, and microformats
simply aren't RDF, and they never will be. And that's a good thing.
If what you want is RDF, just use RDF.
Peace,
Scott
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
