I accidently sent this to just Andy, when I meant to send it to the list. Oops. Anyway, I think the input others have had on this thread is very good, and I look forward to seeing the results.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Benjamin West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Jan 31, 2007 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Species microformat process To: Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To be honest, the >use case for the species microformat is a little bit weak. In what way do you think it could be weak? What information do you think is lacking?
It's not clear what the problem is. The statements refer to a future filled with software agents that know "where to search." Most of the examples you collected exhibit a hyperlinking behaviour to link the name being referenced to a more substantial article on the subject. It's not clear why a new format is required because it appears that the problem can be solved with either simple hyperlinking or with some clever application of rel-tag.
>It could >be that if there is a lack of demand, it is due to the weak use case >and the gap between the research and the proposal. In what way do you feel there is a gap between the research and the proposal? How do you fee that the two could be more closely linked?
The proposed format doesn't bear any resemblence to publishing behaviour in terms of the content and properties being published. The markup also does not resemble current publishing practices.
Why would you want to differentiate between two types of publishing? How would you decide where to draw the line?
"Right tool for the right job." Publishing behaviour would draw the line. Different types of publishing may or may not need different techniques for doing so. Ben West _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss