On 1/30/08 4:16 PM, "Ben Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is that the only problem we'd be trying to solve in making a Dublin > Core microformat?
Simply taking an existing format (like Dublin core) and reusing its vocabulary as class names is insufficient to make a microformat. microformats are based first and foremost on existing *content* publishing behaviors, not first on existing *markup*, nor first on existing *formats*. Only after existing *content* publishing behaviors are documented and implied schema are thus determined does it make sense to document previous attempts at formats for that type of content, and look at re-using *some* of their vocabulary that maps to the implied schema determined by the documented content publishing patterns. Since this has come up a few times in the past (there seem to be lots of folks that want to repurpose a previous format, no matter the actual utility or use cases, into HTML, now that microformats has demonstrated the usefulness of doing so), I've written up a process FAQ entry on this, and expanded further upon it there. <http://microformats.org/wiki/process-faq#Can_a_microformat_be_class_names_f rom_another_format_vocabulary> Thanks, Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
