On Wed, August 29, 2007 16:40, Brian Suda wrote: > On 8/29/07, Manu Sporny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Manu's post hasn't arrived here, yet; I think my ISP has server trouble.] >> Andy Mabbett wrote: >> >>> I think it's time we moved the specs to *-spec or *-specification, >>> and used the "root" page for each microformat, such as the above, for >>> a plain-language introduction, taking care to avoid jargon as much as >>> possible. > > --- moving the specs would break links from all over the web and in > dead tree books that say "you can view the hCard spec at ..." Cool URIs > don't change. It is probably a better idea create new pages about each > format and point people to those instead and link the specs to them. The URI would still work, and a link to the spec could be included "above the fold". >> There have been several times where I've pointed >> somebody to a uF specification page to give them an overview and they >> just come back claiming that the page didn't really tell them >> anything... or worse, it confused them. It seems that this is quite common; it's certainly a problem which needs to be addressed. > --- while i agree that a good explication of what hCard, et al are, > the specs are not always the best place too put this. > > "... I've pointed somebody to a uF specification page to give them an > overview ..." > > The simple answer would be to create another overview page and point > interested people there. When you want to learn more about HTML, do you > look at the w3c spec or do you look else where? http://www.w3.org/html/ is not a spec http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/, while it is a spec, has plain-language intro and begins with links to more plain-language resources. Compared to our "root" pages, those are exemplary models of usability. > what is that else where? > sometimes it is a primer, or info, or examples, or explanation, or about > pages, sometimes they are w3c controlled sometimes not. > > http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-overview > http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-about > http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-primer > http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-my-thoughts > http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-info > http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-explained > > could all be candidates for better explaining what an hCard is... as well, I realised after my initial post that I created <http://microformats.org/wiki/hcalendar-intro> some time ago. > it doesn't have to be hosted here. As was pointed out, the wikipedia entry > is also a good place to explain the explanation and tell people they can > read that as well. > > Microformats are all about bottom-up, we don´t need a central silo for > "all things microformats". It is OK to have discussions, definitions > about formats NOT on our wiki. The microformats wiki is where people come to learn about microformats. We should serve them. > I´m all for cleaning things-up and giving more explanations, but this > shouldn't be to the detriment of the specs and existing links, especially > when it is so easy to create new pages on the wiki. No one has suggested doing anything "to the detriment of the specs". -- Andy Mabbett ** via webmail ** _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
