> Without meaning to sound flippant, they should convince their > tool providers to support microformats. It would take some > effort, but blogs or CMSs or whatever can either provide > access to the HEAD tag or some mechanism for specifying which > microformats are in use and adding the required profiles into > the HEAD tag itself.
That position doesn't reflect reality; it's akin to Rumsfled saying the war was going well. It's what he wanted, but it wasn't true. The reality is that lots of CMS are open-source, and open-source does what they want to, when they want to. It's the nature of open source. What's more, hosting providers often install software based on customer request; customers can have any flavor they want as long as it's vanilla. (Try to get a web host to install ISAPI Rewrite on a Windows server, for example. Apples & Oranges, but still.) No, the person who will be hurt by that position is the content author who can't get the CMS to change and/or doesn't have the skills to modify it themselves. Further, the web at large will be hurt because less content will be marked up semantically than could have been. > When new technology is deployed, there is generally a > transitional phase where it takes developers to make things > work. Once the tools catch up, even non-techies can be a part > of it. There's no real reason not to expect that > transitional phase to be a part of microformats' adoption. > My understanding is many of the tools out there are already > working on some sort of microformats support, this is just > another example of it. Then there is a need for a transitional solution. -- -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org/ _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
