On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Tantek Çelik <[email protected]> wrote: > > All outstanding hCard and hCalendar issues have been resolved (except > for dtend). > > If over the past several years you raised an issue on the wiki > regarding hCard and/or hCalendar, or if you work on an hCard/hCalendar > implementation, please take a look at: > > * http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-issues-resolved > * http://microformats.org/wiki/hcalendar-issues-resolved > > And review resolutions to see if you find anything you disagree with > or anything left unresolved. Please make comments inline on issues > and issue resolutions on the wiki. > > One issue in particular I want to draw your attention to: > > I have chosen to keep the "dtend" inconsistency issue *open* because I > have changed my mind about what I think is the best resolution for it > (based on additional evidence collected this year), and very much want > authors and developers to review this issue, and add both their own > research/evidence and opinions towards the goal of making the best > decision for the community: > > http://microformats.org/wiki/dtend-issue > > > > I am incorporating the resolutions as follows: > > * Minor, informative, and clarifying brainstorming and resolutions > will be applied to the existing hCard and hCalendar pages (often > informative examples and FAQs) > > * Minor, normative changes and brainstorming that likely affect > implementations will be made to 1.0.1 versions of hCard and hCalendar > ** e.g. requiring implementation of the value-class-pattern. > > * Major changes and additions e.g. in brainstorming will be added to > version 1.1 *drafts* for hCard and hCalendar > ** e.g. beginning incorporation of stable draft vCard 4.0 properties > into hCard 1.1 > ** I'll likely track and collect 1.1 additions first on respective > *-brainstorming pages before actually writing up v1.1 drafts. > > > Note that since hCard and hCalendar are or contain building blocks > used by nearly every other compound microformat, it is highly likely > that many of these resolutions and fixes will make their way into > iterations of most other microformats (such as hReview, hAtom, > hResume, etc.) thus if you're an editor of a microformat, you should > review the resolutions as well. > > > Thanks, > > Tantek > > > -- > http://tantek.com/ > _______________________________________________ > microformats-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
And I'll just throw it out there that a hypothetical hAtom 0.2 is waiting for everyone's opinion [1], quite frankly even if it's voting "0 I don't have an opinion". In particular: - we want to know _what_ should be included in hAtom 0.2 - we want to know _how_ to do those things - some issues that people raised need expansion My opinion is that I'd love to at least get the non-contentious stuff (if such a thing exists in the uf world) out of the way and consider doing a hAtom 0.2, then immediately start working for 0.3 with the more tetchy problems. Regards, etc... David [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom-issues _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
