On Oct 10, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Duncan Cragg wrote:
Now, you made a point of stating that it's only for developers and
being merely syntax and not semantics.
Why is that? If you define hCard in JSON and I get one, I'll know it's
an hCard, surely?
You will, but only because you already know what "vcard" means. That
definition is not included in the JSON document anywhere. So to make
a tool do something useful with the JSON representation of hCard,
you'd need to give it hCard-specific instructions for hCard. And the
same is true of RDF. To say that RDF parsers can parse any RDF is
like saying a six year old can read all words. That's true on some
level, but it's also useless on that level. The important part is
understanding.
And would it be considered 'stepping beyond the charter' to make the
documentation of JSON Microformats an official part of this
'movement'? Not just for moving them around, but for fetching, with
their own URIs and such.
I know it's not following after existing practice, but is there an
appetite for starting a parallel Microformats exercise doing this kind
of thing? That is, taking the excellent work done, distilling data
formats, and moving towards a 'hyperdata' proposal, with both XML and
JSON forms, and links between them?
There is, on the -dev list. I'd encourage you to continue this
discussion there so that people who don't care about these topics
need not be bothered by them.
Peace,
Scott
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
