Tantek Çelik wrote: >> No one actually will admit to the existence of a namespace in >> microformats but there is lots of evidence suggesting otherwise. >> >> either intentional or not, Microformats MAY have created their own >> "namespace" of a kind I think? > > The problem is with this loose use of term "namespace" or "namespace of a > kind", not with microformats usage thereof which will result in endless > semantic arguments which are not useful.
Is that why you "RESOLVED" the issue without consulting the list first? http://microformats.org/wiki?title=namespaces-inconsistency-issue&diff=25462&oldid=25450 If Andy did something like that, he'd be up for another ban... With all due respect, Tantek - I was attempting to make the definition of "namespace" that the Microformats community uses far more accurate - to clarify the "no namespaces" stance that the community has. By shutting down the discussion, you've single-handedly pre-empted that improvement to the wiki. An improvement that would help new comers to this list and Microformats understand what we mean by "no namespaces". It was an improvement that the community largely agrees with, but the namespaces page doesn't express[1]. You even agree to this sentiment in the e-mail you quote in the "RESOLUTION" section[2]. I'm disappointed that this discussion is being pre-emptively shut down... just when it seemed as if we were making progress. -- manu [1]http://microformats.org/wiki/namespaces [2]http://microformats.org/wiki/namespaces-inconsistency-issue#Resolution _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
