On Mar 20, 2007, at 7:09 AM, Michael Biven wrote:
On 3/20/07, Ryan King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Before proposing that we replace, replicate or extend hListing,
please experiment with it on actual examples and provide feedback
about its limitations. As of now, your objections are theoretical.
That you can count on. I have to disagree that my point is
theoretical, but instead it is practical. There is enough common
fields between each of the different types of real estate listings
that are not included with hListings, becasue it deals with a much
larger set of different types of unrelated "things" to list.
Actual experimentation with hListing is more useful than abstract
discussion. We could go around in circles about whether hListing
would help for months, or someone could actually try it and we could
all see clearly where it works and where it doesn't. The latter is
strongly preferred.
Microformats don't encode every possible bit of information, instead
they focus on the most common and useful parts.
To me that sentence in itself explains pretty well why people dealing
with real estate listings would benefit from having a separate
standard for them.
No one benefits from unused standards, and what Ryan suggested would
provide an indication that people dealing with real estate listings
are willing to experiment with standards before their problem is 100%
solved. If they're not, we're just wasting our time, because
microformats never solve 100% of anything. It's an iterative
process, and we always need experimentation with the current
iteration to inform the next. That's why participation of relevant
publishers is so crucial.
--
Scott Reynen
MakeDataMakeSense.com
_______________________________________________
microformats-new mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
