On 12/21/06, Tantek Çelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure who originally wrote:
I did.
Others skip the collecting examples (data) step and simply dream up patterns based on their intuition (or "expertise") - perhaps that is what you mean by "allowing myself to look for patterns".
It was based on an IRC conversation, <http://rbach.priv.at/Microformats-IRC/2006-10-28#T222748>, <http://rbach.priv.at/Microformats-IRC/2006-11-15#T223713>.
That non-scientific technique has been tried in many (most) standards and results more often than not in bloated overly complex (certainly not "micro") standards. There are exceptions, where an individual with exceptional discipline and near obsession with simplicity makes something small and elegant, but they are the exception, not the rule.
I'm not using this hypothesis to synthesize new standards. It's just something I've been thinking about, and am looking for evidence to test it. It is as basic a question as why some technology seems to work and some doesn't.
http://microformats.org/wiki/why-examples
This is nice. Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
