Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
Hi Joe, Is this format-of-formats already done? If so, I apologize, can you point me to it? If not, what has been done and would it be premature for me to start work on such a draft specification (after much feedback from everybody here, of course)? This is actually an FAQ, and a fairly tricky one at that, since it is isomorphic to the problem of a general purpose parser. I believe Tantek has declared that discussion off-topic for this list, since it has the potential to be a never-ending rathole. However, I can't find such a statement on the FAQ: http://microformats.org/wiki/faq#Basic_Microformat_Questions Tantek, is that in fact the policy, and is it documented somewhere? That said, there are a few of us crazy enough to want to try, which I'm open to doing off-list if you're interested... -- Ernie P. On Mar 30, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote: Hi All! I've been lurking for a while and truly appreciate all of the great work going into microformats right now! I saw a message on the Structured Blogging mailing list that got me thinking about a format-of-formats... a standard way to describe a format. My thoughts are here: http://www.joereger.com/entry-logid7-eventid5003-Structured- Blogging-FormatofFormats.log As I posted, I realized that I haven't checked in with Tantek and others regarding the concept of a format-of-formats. I've seen a lot of Atom/RDF used. I was a proponent of XML Schema a while back. I've been dabbling with Xforms. XUL is out there. My basic position is that we should be able to provide a common format for the description of a microformat. By creating a standard to describe the formats we free toolmakers to create an implementation and then be done with it. Once we have support from WordPress, MT, Drupal, LJ, etc then we can spawn microformats more quickly, requiring little or no development on the toolmaker part. Toolmakers will compete by providing advanced features in their implementation (like CSS override hooks, see blog post). Aggregators like Technorati/PubSub will be able to build advanced functionality on top of specific formats and will compete at that level. For example, Technorati may create Technorati Music while PubSub may create PubSub Movies... their investment differentiates and end-users win. Is this format-of-formats already done? If so, I apologize, can you point me to it? If not, what has been done and would it be premature for me to start work on such a draft specification (after much feedback from everybody here, of course)? Thanks for getting me up to speed! Keep up the great work! Best, Joe Reger ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
Hi Joe, Gotcha... sorry for the intrusion... didn't want to stir things up.. No worries. After all, most of are here *in order* to stir things up. :-) it certainly is a big challenge. A gentleman on SB recommended Microcontent Description (MCD) as a starting point. Ernie, if you're up for it, I'd be interested in getting something going. I think this list is the place to do it but I certainly respect Tantak's desire to avoid the quagmire! Understood. Maybe a sub-list of some sort that Ernie and I moderate? Best, Joe Not a bad idea at all. Tantek, I realize you may think this a complete waste of time, but would you be willing to at least quarantine us lunatics in our own microformats-schema mailing list? If nothing else, it provides a safety valve to prevent the issue from cropping up here periodically. And who knows? Every 65 million years or so, something *does* manage to boil the ocean. :-) -- Ernie P. On Mar 30, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote: On 3/30/06, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Joe, Is this format-of-formats already done? If so, I apologize, can you point me to it? If not, what has been done and would it be premature for me to start work on such a draft specification (after much feedback from everybody here, of course)? This is actually an FAQ, and a fairly tricky one at that, since it is isomorphic to the problem of a general purpose parser. I believe Tantek has declared that discussion off-topic for this list, since it has the potential to be a never-ending rathole. However, I can't find such a statement on the FAQ: http://microformats.org/wiki/faq#Basic_Microformat_Questions Tantek, is that in fact the policy, and is it documented somewhere? That said, there are a few of us crazy enough to want to try, which I'm open to doing off-list if you're interested... -- Ernie P. On Mar 30, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote: Hi All! I've been lurking for a while and truly appreciate all of the great work going into microformats right now! I saw a message on the Structured Blogging mailing list that got me thinking about a format-of-formats... a standard way to describe a format. My thoughts are here: http://www.joereger.com/entry-logid7-eventid5003-Structured- Blogging-FormatofFormats.log As I posted, I realized that I haven't checked in with Tantek and others regarding the concept of a format-of-formats. I've seen a lot of Atom/RDF used. I was a proponent of XML Schema a while back. I've been dabbling with Xforms. XUL is out there. My basic position is that we should be able to provide a common format for the description of a microformat. By creating a standard to describe the formats we free toolmakers to create an implementation and then be done with it. Once we have support from WordPress, MT, Drupal, LJ, etc then we can spawn microformats more quickly, requiring little or no development on the toolmaker part. Toolmakers will compete by providing advanced features in their implementation (like CSS override hooks, see blog post). Aggregators like Technorati/PubSub will be able to build advanced functionality on top of specific formats and will compete at that level. For example, Technorati may create Technorati Music while PubSub may create PubSub Movies... their investment differentiates and end-users win. Is this format-of-formats already done? If so, I apologize, can you point me to it? If not, what has been done and would it be premature for me to start work on such a draft specification (after much feedback from everybody here, of course)? Thanks for getting me up to speed! Keep up the great work! Best, Joe Reger ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
Chris, The perceived value that you see is exactly why this whole topic is such a massive trap. It is very seductive (especially to programmers) to think that you can define a format for formats (a meta-format shall we say), *once*, then implement *only that*, then have every specific format magically work. In practice, this never[*] happens. It's been tried *numerous* times. DTD, XML Schema, etc. In practice, key portions/features of really *useful* specific formats (like HTML) *always* fall outside of the meta-format, and *must* be specified in prose of a specification. This is specifically why I designed XMDP to be to absolute minimum of what is necessary to define/recognize a vocabulary. I'm working on some extensions for includes (to transclude multiple XMDP profiles or portions thereof into a single profile), but other than that, I consider XMDP done. In the spirit of don't reinvent what you can re-use, anyone seriously desiring to work on a format-of-formats should *first* teach themselves DTD, and XML Schema *at a minimum*, before having the arrogance to think they can do better. And yes, exploring a format-of-formats is very much off topic and not just outside, but *against* the philosophies and principles of microformats. http://microformats.org/wiki/microformats Thanks, Tantek [*]The *one* exception that I know of to this that adherents have had (at least) some amount of success with is RDF. If you're really interested in generic format-of-formats type discussions and all the abstractions present therein, there is already a community that has far more experience and understanding and desire in that space than the microformats community. On 3/30/06 11:41 AM, Chris Messina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do see this work having value, especially if browsers and client-side apps are going to be able to keep up with the various microformats as they are created and improved. I don't know much about the history of this kind of discussion, but it sounds useful *if* it can develop standards to ease the deployment of new microformats into the wild... Chris On 3/30/06, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Joe, Gotcha... sorry for the intrusion... didn't want to stir things up.. No worries. After all, most of are here *in order* to stir things up. :-) it certainly is a big challenge. A gentleman on SB recommended Microcontent Description (MCD) as a starting point. Ernie, if you're up for it, I'd be interested in getting something going. I think this list is the place to do it but I certainly respect Tantak's desire to avoid the quagmire! Understood. Maybe a sub-list of some sort that Ernie and I moderate? Best, Joe Not a bad idea at all. Tantek, I realize you may think this a complete waste of time, but would you be willing to at least quarantine us lunatics in our own microformats-schema mailing list? If nothing else, it provides a safety valve to prevent the issue from cropping up here periodically. And who knows? Every 65 million years or so, something *does* manage to boil the ocean. :-) -- Ernie P. On Mar 30, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote: On 3/30/06, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Joe, Is this format-of-formats already done? If so, I apologize, can you point me to it? If not, what has been done and would it be premature for me to start work on such a draft specification (after much feedback from everybody here, of course)? This is actually an FAQ, and a fairly tricky one at that, since it is isomorphic to the problem of a general purpose parser. I believe Tantek has declared that discussion off-topic for this list, since it has the potential to be a never-ending rathole. However, I can't find such a statement on the FAQ: http://microformats.org/wiki/faq#Basic_Microformat_Questions Tantek, is that in fact the policy, and is it documented somewhere? That said, there are a few of us crazy enough to want to try, which I'm open to doing off-list if you're interested... -- Ernie P. On Mar 30, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote: Hi All! I've been lurking for a while and truly appreciate all of the great work going into microformats right now! I saw a message on the Structured Blogging mailing list that got me thinking about a format-of-formats... a standard way to describe a format. My thoughts are here: http://www.joereger.com/entry-logid7-eventid5003-Structured- Blogging-FormatofFormats.log As I posted, I realized that I haven't checked in with Tantek and others regarding the concept of a format-of-formats. I've seen a lot of Atom/RDF used. I was a proponent of XML Schema a while back. I've been dabbling with Xforms. XUL is out there. My basic position is that we should be able to provide a common format for the description of a microformat. By creating a standard to describe the formats we free toolmakers to create
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
Tantek Ç elik wrote... In practice, this never[*] happens. It's been tried *numerous* times. DTD, XML Schema, etc. In practice, key portions/features of really *useful* specific formats (like HTML) *always* fall outside of the meta-format, and *must* be specified in prose of a specification. This is specifically why I designed XMDP to be to absolute minimum of what is necessary to define/recognize a vocabulary. I'm working on some extensions for includes (to transclude multiple XMDP profiles or portions thereof into a single profile), but other than that, I consider XMDP done. In the spirit of don't reinvent what you can re-use, anyone seriously desiring to work on a format-of-formats should *first* teach themselves DTD, and XML Schema *at a minimum*, before having the arrogance to think they can do better. Why aren't they just using DTD or SML Schema for this? That was the first thing I thought of when Joe first posted. Atamido ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
Yeah, I didn't really think that this topic could be solved (or even discussed) herein. It's a nice pipedream, but I do agree falls outside the boundaries of the achieveable goals that we've set out w/ microformats. Chris On 3/30/06, Paul Bryson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tantek Ç elik wrote... In practice, this never[*] happens. It's been tried *numerous* times. DTD, XML Schema, etc. In practice, key portions/features of really *useful* specific formats (like HTML) *always* fall outside of the meta-format, and *must* be specified in prose of a specification. This is specifically why I designed XMDP to be to absolute minimum of what is necessary to define/recognize a vocabulary. I'm working on some extensions for includes (to transclude multiple XMDP profiles or portions thereof into a single profile), but other than that, I consider XMDP done. In the spirit of don't reinvent what you can re-use, anyone seriously desiring to work on a format-of-formats should *first* teach themselves DTD, and XML Schema *at a minimum*, before having the arrogance to think they can do better. Why aren't they just using DTD or SML Schema for this? That was the first thing I thought of when Joe first posted. Atamido ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
I mostly agree with tantek, but I would like to point out a few more things to look at as far as this sort of effort goes. XSLT provides more than enough power to describe and extract information out of pages with microformats embedded. x2v demonstrates this. If you're looking for a single implementation for microformats, look no further than libxslt, or sabotron, or whatever your favorite xslt engine. The whole model for this sort of thing is laid out in GRDDL on w3's website. Tim Berners Lee seems to advocate using the GRDDL model to transform microformats into RDF, using xslt. RDF is about as neutral a format for data as you're going to get. So pretty much all the difficult problems for the sort of thing you want have already been solved as best they can be. The difficult part now is adoption. On Mar 30, 2006, at 2:54 PM, Chris Messina wrote: Yeah, I didn't really think that this topic could be solved (or even discussed) herein. It's a nice pipedream, but I do agree falls outside the boundaries of the achieveable goals that we've set out w/ microformats. Chris On 3/30/06, Paul Bryson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tantek Ç elik wrote... In practice, this never[*] happens. It's been tried *numerous* times. DTD, XML Schema, etc. In practice, key portions/features of really *useful* specific formats (like HTML) *always* fall outside of the meta- format, and *must* be specified in prose of a specification. This is specifically why I designed XMDP to be to absolute minimum of what is necessary to define/recognize a vocabulary. I'm working on some extensions for includes (to transclude multiple XMDP profiles or portions thereof into a single profile), but other than that, I consider XMDP done. In the spirit of don't reinvent what you can re-use, anyone seriously desiring to work on a format-of-formats should *first* teach themselves DTD, and XML Schema *at a minimum*, before having the arrogance to think they can do better. Why aren't they just using DTD or SML Schema for this? That was the first thing I thought of when Joe first posted. Atamido ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
before having the arrogance to think they can do better. I'm not proposing that we create a replacement for XML Schema or any of the other great technologies out there... just that we agree on one as the most frequently used, most standard, most common, baseline, generally accepted but not perfect way to describe a microformat. As you note, there are a lot of ways to crack this nut. And this is the fact that I'm having trouble with. Toolmakers, aggregators and innovators are having a tough time with microformats because each new one that pops up requires custom code. Instead of taking a leadership role, choosing one and advocating adoption, you seem to revel in the establishment of many microformats. I'm questioning where the customization should be... at the user level where apps are differentiated? Or at the format level? Why should each format have to start at ground zero, write custom plugins, force users to install them and then gain adoption? Why should Technorati have to write custom code at the format level for each format (of course it needs to write custom code at the business logic layer... that's how we all differentiate). If we agree to a framework, even with all of the limitations of whatever framework we choose, aren't we helping users use microformats more? What about the people from National Geographic who want to set up a format to track wildlife? Should they have to understand XML Schema to take part in the microformat revolution? And what about the people in middle Iowa who like to count hay stacks? Should they have to learn arcane programming languages just to define a two field microformat (hay stack color, hay stack size)? I understand your desire to not standardize on a definition language. Because doing so will inherently create limitations to what can be done. And some things just can't be done with a basic approach. And those things that gain massive adoption probably shouldn't be done with a simple approach. I'm talking about the long tail of microformats... who's looking out for all those users? Users are crying out, on this very mailing list, every single day for an easier way to create and use microformats. Maybe we should see microformats.org as the high-end solution with the flexibility to cover everything. But I think we also need a microformats Light that enables most of the functionality that most of the people are looking for. In the last 5 days I've seen these microformats proposed: Bookmark Exchange Format Attention Microformat Citation Format MicroId Plants Format Work of Art Conversation Following this list you see these requests all the time. This week's performance would predict 260 microformats in a year. And really, if somebody's posting to this mailing list they're probably hyper-plugged in to geekland. If we think about our users... the millions of people we rely on to make all of our geeky stuff actually useful... how many formats do you think are out there with pent-up demand? I'd say... um... a lot. And how many formats has microformats.org created/sanctioned so far throughout its history? I see nine specs. Eleven drafts. Thirty seven exploratory discussions. That's 21% of the requested formats we're seeing on this board. And I'd argue that it's about .01% of the total number of microformats that our users would like to see and be able to use. Think of all of the hobbies out there... all of the interest groups... they all track custom data of some sort. Sure, we don't care about that data type... but it's their life... they're passionate about it. Who's serving them? Who's enabling them? Who's letting them publish so that smart entrepreneurs can leverage that data into the next aggregation phenomenon? To me this user-oriented analysis paints an obvious argument for a format-of-formats. The current microformat mailing list and developer community is doing great work but it's not supporting the users who want a quicker means of creating and using microformats. I could be wrong on this... please prove me so. Microformats should be the plumbing and grease for this thing we all (begrudgingly) call Web 2.0. I want to be clear on one thing: I love the work being done on microformats.org. It is truly valuable and innovative. The process and ideals are wonderful. The people doing the work are collaborative and productive. I am in no way against what's being done. And I appreciate and completely understand Tantek's strong desire to squash my ideas quickly before I distract people from the work already being done. I simply see a big gaping hole in what's being done today. What I've been told is essentially that I can take my hole and go play elsewhere. I don't like hearing that, but there's likely little I can or should do about it. If the users and readers of this list don't agree with my ideas and proposals then I should be kicked off. I promise I won't be a nuisance. But before I go I'd like to ask everybody
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
Allow me to point you directly to the GRDDL site. http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/grddl/ Along with xmdp, I believe it thoroughly addresses all the issues you raise about as well as they can possibly be addressed. On Mar 30, 2006, at 4:01 PM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote: before having the arrogance to think they can do better. I'm not proposing that we create a replacement for XML Schema or any of the other great technologies out there... just that we agree on one as the most frequently used, most standard, most common, baseline, generally accepted but not perfect way to describe a microformat. As you note, there are a lot of ways to crack this nut. And this is the fact that I'm having trouble with. Toolmakers, aggregators and innovators are having a tough time with microformats because each new one that pops up requires custom code. Instead of taking a leadership role, choosing one and advocating adoption, you seem to revel in the establishment of many microformats. I'm questioning where the customization should be... at the user level where apps are differentiated? Or at the format level? Why should each format have to start at ground zero, write custom plugins, force users to install them and then gain adoption? Why should Technorati have to write custom code at the format level for each format (of course it needs to write custom code at the business logic layer... that's how we all differentiate). If we agree to a framework, even with all of the limitations of whatever framework we choose, aren't we helping users use microformats more? What about the people from National Geographic who want to set up a format to track wildlife? Should they have to understand XML Schema to take part in the microformat revolution? And what about the people in middle Iowa who like to count hay stacks? Should they have to learn arcane programming languages just to define a two field microformat (hay stack color, hay stack size)? I understand your desire to not standardize on a definition language. Because doing so will inherently create limitations to what can be done. And some things just can't be done with a basic approach. And those things that gain massive adoption probably shouldn't be done with a simple approach. I'm talking about the long tail of microformats... who's looking out for all those users? Users are crying out, on this very mailing list, every single day for an easier way to create and use microformats. Maybe we should see microformats.org as the high-end solution with the flexibility to cover everything. But I think we also need a microformats Light that enables most of the functionality that most of the people are looking for. In the last 5 days I've seen these microformats proposed: Bookmark Exchange Format Attention Microformat Citation Format MicroId Plants Format Work of Art Conversation Following this list you see these requests all the time. This week's performance would predict 260 microformats in a year. And really, if somebody's posting to this mailing list they're probably hyper-plugged in to geekland. If we think about our users... the millions of people we rely on to make all of our geeky stuff actually useful... how many formats do you think are out there with pent-up demand? I'd say... um... a lot. And how many formats has microformats.org created/sanctioned so far throughout its history? I see nine specs. Eleven drafts. Thirty seven exploratory discussions. That's 21% of the requested formats we're seeing on this board. And I'd argue that it's about .01% of the total number of microformats that our users would like to see and be able to use. Think of all of the hobbies out there... all of the interest groups... they all track custom data of some sort. Sure, we don't care about that data type... but it's their life... they're passionate about it. Who's serving them? Who's enabling them? Who's letting them publish so that smart entrepreneurs can leverage that data into the next aggregation phenomenon? To me this user-oriented analysis paints an obvious argument for a format-of-formats. The current microformat mailing list and developer community is doing great work but it's not supporting the users who want a quicker means of creating and using microformats. I could be wrong on this... please prove me so. Microformats should be the plumbing and grease for this thing we all (begrudgingly) call Web 2.0. I want to be clear on one thing: I love the work being done on microformats.org. It is truly valuable and innovative. The process and ideals are wonderful. The people doing the work are collaborative and productive. I am in no way against what's being done. And I appreciate and completely understand Tantek's strong desire to squash my ideas quickly before I distract people from the work already being done. I simply see a big gaping hole in what's being done today. What I've been told is essentially that I can take my hole and go play
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. The w3c. Thanks, I completely agree. What I'm looking for is the best way to get some degree of sanctioning of RDF/XMLSchema/XSL/whatever and then use that sanctioning to gain toolmaker adoption. It would seem to me that this mailing list is the place to do that, but I guess I'm wrong. Do you know of another group that's lobbying toolmakers to support something like this? Best, Joe ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. The w3c. Nah... I appreciate your effort. But the w3c is not forging relationships with blogging toolmakers and trying to gain adoption of a long tail microformat framework. But I know that those on this list have relationships in place. This critical piece of Web 2.0 plumbing should be in place as soon as possible and that's going to take advocacy. I thought that microformats.org would be interested in being the one to define this piece of the puzzle... it seems a natural extension. And microformats.org can accomplish this much more quickly than little old Joe Reger can. If we all generally understand that it's going to happen, why aren't we taking the leadership role in making it happen? I know what microformats are not but maybe microformats.org can embrace a sub-project to make this happen. We don't have to call them microformats... users don't really care what they're called... as long as they can spin them up easily and leverage the power of the blogosphere. ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
This is where you have completely lost me. You are not making it particularly clear what problem it is that you actually want to solve. Here's some more links. I truly believe this problem is much smaller than you believe it is. http://dannyayers.com/2005/08/01/microformats-on-the-grddl/ http://people.w3.org/~dom/archives/2005/05/grddl-specification-updated/ http://b4mad.net/datenbrei/archives/2005/12/13/grddl-vcard-and- microsformats-a-ballet/ These are not extremely obscure technologies, they solve the problem, the w3c advocates their usage, Blog makers that have any interest in standards and the semantic web *will* adopt them sooner or later. So will /browsers/, and /search engines/. And if they don't, it's not rocket science to write a plugin that makes it work for whatever problem you happen to want to solve. It's very simple, and it's not hidden knowledge on microformats.org. If you want to describe a microformat, use xmdp. If you want to do something with a microformat, write an xslt. This is the standard, this is advocated, and it works today. If you want to help out the effort for adoption of these technologies... adopt them! You don't have to go any further than that. If it works, and does something sexy, then other people will try and do what you did. Very simple. On Mar 30, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote: Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. The w3c. Nah... I appreciate your effort. But the w3c is not forging relationships with blogging toolmakers and trying to gain adoption of a long tail microformat framework. But I know that those on this list have relationships in place. This critical piece of Web 2.0 plumbing should be in place as soon as possible and that's going to take advocacy. I thought that microformats.org would be interested in being the one to define this piece of the puzzle... it seems a natural extension. And microformats.org can accomplish this much more quickly than little old Joe Reger can. If we all generally understand that it's going to happen, why aren't we taking the leadership role in making it happen? I know what microformats are not but maybe microformats.org can embrace a sub-project to make this happen. We don't have to call them microformats... users don't really care what they're called... as long as they can spin them up easily and leverage the power of the blogosphere. ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
what problem it is that you actually want to solve. The sooner or later problem. Joe ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
Joe, First of all, I really appreciate your enthusiasm. I can see that you understand and appreciate microformats and the ideas behind them. However, a format-for-formats is outside the scope of the discussion here. So, I'm going to have to ask that we take this discussion elsewhere. Other topics brought up in this thread (esp, later on, regarding evangelism and adoption) are definitely on-topic and important, but the technological topic of a meta-microformat is out of scope now (and possibly forever). I'll explain with some inline comments (and hopefully convert this to an FAQ soon-ish)... (if you have any questions/comments, remember, please take it off- list, feel free to email me directly about anything I say) On Mar 30, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote: before having the arrogance to think they can do better. I'm not proposing that we create a replacement for XML Schema or any of the other great technologies out there... just that we agree on one as the most frequently used, most standard, most common, baseline, generally accepted but not perfect way to describe a microformat. We can, its called prose. Tantek's earlier point, which I agree with with, is this: Formats always need prose to describe them. Prose supersedes formal descriptions (mostly because, being our native representation as humans, its more reliable). Since this is the case, its is more useful and expedient to just do prose + examples (including reference implementations). The second argument against meta-languages is history. Meta-languages have shown to be insufficient for describing formats in way that is fully interoperable with reality. Why should we believe that we're any smarter. * As you note, there are a lot of ways to crack this nut. And this is the fact that I'm having trouble with. Toolmakers, aggregators and innovators are having a tough time with microformats because each new one that pops up requires custom code. It seems that you're suggesting that we can survive with writing a declarative description of a microformat, which can then produce code for publishing and consuming microformats. I, personally, don't think this is a problem that has been solved anywhere and since it is outside the core technology needed for microformats adoption, it is extremely low priority. Instead of taking a leadership role, choosing one and advocating adoption, you seem to revel in the establishment of many microformats. I'm questioning where the customization should be... at the user level where apps are differentiated? Or at the format level? Why should each format have to start at ground zero, I think this is an overstatement. Apps don't have to start at zero. There are many libraries for healing with markup. write custom plugins, force users to install them and then gain adoption? Why should Technorati have to write custom code at the format level for each format Because each one is different. ... Maybe we should see microformats.org as the high-end solution with the flexibility to cover everything. But I think we also need a microformats Light that enables most of the functionality that most of the people are looking for. We already have 'microformats light,' its called 'semantic markup.' Semantic markup has been an option longer than microformats have. In the last 5 days I've seen these microformats proposed: Bookmark Exchange Format Attention Microformat Citation Format MicroId Plants Format Work of Art Conversation 3 of those formats already exist. The others are being worked on. Following this list you see these requests all the time. This week's performance would predict 260 microformats in a year. And really, if somebody's posting to this mailing list they're probably hyper-plugged in to geekland. If we think about our users... the millions of people we rely on to make all of our geeky stuff actually useful... how many formats do you think are out there with pent-up demand? I'd say... um... a lot. I'd prefer not to think of requests in terms of numbers of formats, but in terms of functionality. With small, simple, modular microformats, many solutions are possible. We don't need a specific format for every use-case. Also, more formats is not necessarily a good thing. Remember, we're working with a shared vocabulary, which means we need careful management of that vocabulary. We don't want to create another Tower of Babel. ... To me this user-oriented analysis paints an obvious argument for a format-of-formats. The current microformat mailing list and developer community is doing great work but it's not supporting the users who want a quicker means of creating and using microformats. I could be wrong on this... please prove me so. I can understand that people want things quickly, but we can't just throw an idea in a microwave oven, hoping that it will come out tasty in a few minutes. The
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
So, I'm going to have to ask that we take this discussion elsewhere. I completely understand and apologize for the intrusion. Thanks for the comments... you make many excellent points and I'll take them to heart as I consider ways to get some sort of standard adopted by toolmakers. But don't expect big things... I'm just little old Joe down here in Atlanta. The microformats process is much faster and efficient than a standards body, yet slower than two guys in a garage Yep... I agree. And this is a very valuable, productive balance. Keep up the great work at microformats.org! Best to all, Joe ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?
Ryan produced, I extrapolated: Semantic markup is the long tail of microformats. Short and to the point. I like it. :DG ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
