I think you guys are on the right track. I'd like to encourage you to do some "market research". Start collecting examples and see what you can distill. Here are some questions I've got:
* Are lots of people publishing questions and answers? - My bias is yes! * How are they doing it? - My bias favors the <dl> idiom, but it'd be interesting to find out how widely it's used. You might ask Ian Hixie what research he's uncovered wrt to class="question" and its ilk. There are also tools my employer offers that would help with this research, but I don't want to mention it inapropriately, and I'm working on ways to benefit open source communities with this tool. - Browse around and see if we can collect a handful of idioms used for this. I suspect that there are a few classes of sites publishing QnA (which we should verify through research): * Commercial sites offering Q&A to inform the public of their products * Project/personal sites offering Q&A to help with encountered problems * Informative sites whose focus is Q&A I bet we can find common idioms and patterns for publishing this kind of material. Finally, there are a few things keeping me from starting a wiki page: 1.) What is the scope of this format? Is it strictly questions and answers? Is there a slightly more general concept that would yield much more benefit without a corresponding increase in complexity? 2.) What are the use cases for this format? 3.) Are there any other formats that cover the would-be use cases/problem space? Finally, on a more personal note: I'd like to encourage the community to help with this research. There have been some negative things going on, and this is a good opportunity to reset our expectations: * Be positive * Do research * Build consensus * Constructive collaboration. There will be more on this in a separate thread. -Ben On 12/15/06, Paul Kinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Paul, what do think? I personally think that the qa is a good idea, I belive that you would be easily able to seperate questions and answers out and you will be able to start infering meaning from the text inside the qa section, however like with all microformats it is useless unless people use it (and if it is only you and me then there is little point in having a microformat because only ourselves will be publishing and consuming our own data). I don't belive at the moment that people will be bothered with microformats unless the tools are there that create them without people knowing about them, but obviously when you get to that level of integration I don't think microformats will be needed at all. However on a lighter note, as far as I am aware the dl, dt suffice (although it looks like dt is not ment for questions) I don't think classes are needed to distinguish questions and answers, and if this can start to get used by people I have lots of ideas for it. Paul On 14/12/06, Ciaran McNulty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/14/06, Taylor Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This might break when there are multiple answers, not sure if one to many dt 2 dd is ok, but a surrounding <di> would help. > > One-to-many DT/DD is allowed, as are many-to-many. > > <dl> > <dt>A term</dt> > <dt>Another term</dt> > <dd>A definition</dd> > <dd>Another definition</dd> > </dl> > > It's a DT that follows a DD that 'starts' a new block, if that makes sense? > > > -Ciaran McNulty > _______________________________________________ > microformats-discuss mailing list > microformats-discuss@microformats.org > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss > _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
_______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
