Keith Grennan wrote:
I agree. I really hope "microformat" won't turn into just another
term for "semantic HTML." Clear communication is difficult enough
already without additional ambiguity.
I think it already has.
It's like Adobe trying to control how people use the word 'photoshop'.
It certainly seems to be heading that way. But now that we recognise
this problem (it was discussed quite a bit at the microformats dinner
in SF recently), we can't try to take steps to help clarify the
situation. POSH advocacy is a good start. It may be a silly name but
it's an important step in making it clear that microformats are
narrowly defined but built on top of semantic markup -- a much wider
pool:
http://microformats.org/wiki/posh
As the popularity of the term microformat grows, you might have to
look
for higher ground that's easier to defend. Because really, who
wants to
spend their time and energy being language police?
I hope it won't come to that but you're right about the language
police: I feel like I've spent most of today blogging, leaving
comments and responding to emails in an attempt to set people
straight on what does and doesn't constitute a microformat. But like
I said, at least now that we recognise the problem, we can make a
concerted effort to deal with it. I hope that work won't be Sisyphean.
ps. I realize that I'm a newcomer to this community, so I hope I'm not
offending anyone. Hopefully my comments are valuable as an outsider's
first impression.
As an newcomer, your comments are probably the most valuable and
relevant on this issue. Much appreciated.
Bye,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Keith
a d a c t i o
http://adactio.com/
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
