In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ian Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes
On 08/03/2007 19:43, Ara Pehlivanian wrote:
What I think your contrast of microformats' bottleneck with the web's
free growth is missing is the notion that there indeed /was/ a
"bottleneck" in the development of the web in the form of Tim
Berners-Lee.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but you appear to be saying that creation of
each microformat is equivalent to creating HTML, i.e. a set of useful
elements people can use for creative expression. Under the microformats
process that effort needs to be centralised to prevent name collision,
semantic drift and duplication of effort. There's no way to allow
parallel development and then work out how to coordinate differences later.
This means there's a limit to the scalability of the mf development process.
I wonder if the issue isn't connected to the way microformats have been
developed on a relatively wide-scale format (e.g. hCard) rather than
first focussing on smaller components ("telephone numbers, say, then
postal addresses, and personal/ organisational names; then combining
these).
I think the agreements can occur in parallel between interested and
motivated parties. But that's not the impression I get of the
microformats process. It isn't a microformat until it's blessed by the
mf community.
I'm not sure that it's the "community" whose blessing is relevant.
Here's a great microformat that's been developed outside the mf community:
http://selfdescription.org/
Has anyone here heard of it, evaluated it or have an opinion on it?
I think there should be a page on the Wiki where such initiatives are
listed, and, if appropriate, critiqued.
I have no confidence that such a page would be allowed.
--
Andy Mabbett
<http://www.pigsonthewing.org.uk/uFsig/>
Welcome to the world's longest week!
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
