Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
I'd rather not continue this thread any longer, but I do want to make a few observations, and then in vite anyone who wants to continue this discussion to note your reservations on the POSH talk page [1]. First, the pickup of microformats owes itself to a number of reasons, not merely the hard work of this community, to which it owes a great deal, but to the utility, as you outlined, of using microformats in practice that map to existing standards. In the case of microformats for which there is little prioir art or formats work, the process-to-play is unclear. Sure, don't use presentational elements in your markup, but what else? How do you contribute to a body of work that may someday lead to the germination of a microformat? Basically, what do you in between marking up your site with semantic HTML and getting to work on existing microformats? The POSH process [2] is an answer to this question. So beyond just using semantic HTML, we're providing guidance and leadership on yet another way to improve your value as a semantic web designer and marketing it with a term that doesn't overlap with existing lowercase semantic web evanglism. Anyway, the proof will be in the pudding, and I already have a number of efforts up my sleeve to make advances on this front. Given the large interest in creating *new* microformats, we need to provide a different kind of engagment for these folks; for me, that's the point of POSH. If you have more feedback, again, please contribute it to the POSH talk [1] page. Chris [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/Talk:posh [2] http://microformats.org/wiki/posh#The_POSH_Process On 5/13/07, Ara Pehlivanian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/13/07, Chris Messina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It isn't that the arguments aren't clear enough or loudly enough; we've had a good 4-5 years of tooting the proverbial semantic horn. The problem is that, in a lesser amount of time, microformats have totally taken off and captured people's imaginations whereas semantic HTML, the parent container of microformats, has relatively stagnated. What is the assumption of the stagnation of semantic HTML relative to microformats being based on? Were there any surveys conducted? People polled? Or is this just based on a feeling? Why is this? Why is the new microformats term more successful than semantic HTML? I don't think the term has anything to do with it at all. Microformats give quick, tangible returns upon implementation. When you implement hCard, you reuse data you've already got in your page and suddenly people can access and process that data in a systematic way. Conversely, whether you write semantic HTML or not, browsers are so forgiving that you'll hardly notice a thing right off the bat. That isn't to say that semantic HTML isn't important. It's just a universe apart from microformats in terms of immediate return on investment. The reason why microformats have taken off is because there are apps out there that directly consume them and won't work otherwise. The bane of semantic HTML has always been the forgiving browser. So long as apps aren't written to take full advantage of semantic markup, the problem will continue to exist. POSH or not. Because ultimately, what convinces a developer/designer is seeing the immediate result of their efforts. The paradox is in the fact that the creators of the apps that take advantage of semantic markup are the developers who need convincing themselves. Those familiar with semantic HTML know how to take advantage of it via CSS and JavaScript. Those unfamiliar don't know, and therefore don't see the need. This is why the process of evangelizing people in the use of semantic markup is so slow and painstaking. It's also why microformats can't be used as a comparison because the two are universes apart when it comes to the apps that consume them. Therefore, for pure marketing and attention reasons, we decided that coming up with less of a mouthful With all due respect, the idea that semantic HTML is a mouthful is downright patronizing, for those who already know of it, as well as for those whom we're trying to reach. suggesting that people merely use semantic HTML is a bit misleading and open-ended, in that HTML itself has a poor vocabulary of semantic objects But POSH /is/ semantic HTML, and is therefore open-ended, with a poor vocabulary of semantic objects. Stating that one should use POSH won't change any of that. If anything, throwing a new acronym into the mix, in my opinion, will only confuse people and fragment any ground the semantic markup movement has already made. That's because, not everyone who sees a new acronym will read up on it (as we're already swimming in a sea of them). POSH is the perfect anecdote to what I might call semantic malaise, where web developers and designers would love to go semantic, but apart from moving away from presentational elements and using tables for layouts, there hasn't been much beyond that that
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
On 5/7/07, Keith Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm of the opinion that Semantic HTML is a perfectly fine term for Semantic HTML, and I'm a little sceptical of the utility of a new acronym for it. If there's a problem with people still not understanding semantic html, either the arguments for it aren't being made clear enough and loud enough, or maybe the arguments simply don't chime with html authors ' perceptions of what they are doing. It's not like we weren't aware of the phrase semantic html when we went into discussions about POSH (obviously, as it's part of the new acronym). It isn't that the arguments aren't clear enough or loudly enough; we've had a good 4-5 years of tooting the proverbial semantic horn. The problem is that, in a lesser amount of time, microformats have totally taken off and captured people's imaginations whereas semantic HTML, the parent container of microformats, has relatively stagnated. Why is this? Why is the new microformats term more successful than semantic HTML? Well, right or wrong, we felt that 1) microformats have an aura of cool to them and 2) they have a pretty process for getting involved. Plenty of folks have been pushing semantic markup for some time; fewer think that semantic markup is cool. Therefore, for pure marketing and attention reasons, we decided that coming up with less of a mouthful would give us a chance to redefine what getting involved in the broader semantics movement would look like -- and would give us a way to package the concept as being on par with, or even as coming before, the microformats effort. Moreover, suggesting that people merely use semantic HTML is a bit misleading and open-ended, in that HTML itself has a poor vocabulary of semantic objects -- hence microformats and the work to codify some common classnames in HTML5 (I tend to disagree with HTML5's efforts though, and think that classnames should remain undefined, and let community adoption define their use and/or reuse.) POSH is the perfect anecdote to what I might call semantic malaise, where web developers and designers would love to go semantic, but apart from moving away from presentational elements and using tables for layouts, there hasn't been much beyond that that offers a way to level up, whereas with microformats, there's a clear process (think of hCard as being a level-80 microformat, etc). Anyway, love it or hate, use it or dismiss, I intend to base a lot of my upcoming promotional efforts on promoting POSH and microformats in tandem... with the limited success that semantic HTML has had in recent years and with the onslaught of closed web technologies like SilverLight, Apollo and JavaFX picking up steam, what's there to lose at this point? We've got to do something other than just hope that somehow, someday semantic will click in people's head as a glorious AHA and as the key to the future! Chris -- Chris Messina Citizen Provocateur Open Source Advocate-at-Large Work: http://citizenagency.com Blog: http://factoryjoe.com/blog Cell: 412 225-1051 Skype: factoryjoe This email is: [ ] bloggable[X] ask first [ ] private ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
On 5/13/07, Chris Messina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It isn't that the arguments aren't clear enough or loudly enough; we've had a good 4-5 years of tooting the proverbial semantic horn. The problem is that, in a lesser amount of time, microformats have totally taken off and captured people's imaginations whereas semantic HTML, the parent container of microformats, has relatively stagnated. What is the assumption of the stagnation of semantic HTML relative to microformats being based on? Were there any surveys conducted? People polled? Or is this just based on a feeling? Why is this? Why is the new microformats term more successful than semantic HTML? I don't think the term has anything to do with it at all. Microformats give quick, tangible returns upon implementation. When you implement hCard, you reuse data you've already got in your page and suddenly people can access and process that data in a systematic way. Conversely, whether you write semantic HTML or not, browsers are so forgiving that you'll hardly notice a thing right off the bat. That isn't to say that semantic HTML isn't important. It's just a universe apart from microformats in terms of immediate return on investment. The reason why microformats have taken off is because there are apps out there that directly consume them and won't work otherwise. The bane of semantic HTML has always been the forgiving browser. So long as apps aren't written to take full advantage of semantic markup, the problem will continue to exist. POSH or not. Because ultimately, what convinces a developer/designer is seeing the immediate result of their efforts. The paradox is in the fact that the creators of the apps that take advantage of semantic markup are the developers who need convincing themselves. Those familiar with semantic HTML know how to take advantage of it via CSS and JavaScript. Those unfamiliar don't know, and therefore don't see the need. This is why the process of evangelizing people in the use of semantic markup is so slow and painstaking. It's also why microformats can't be used as a comparison because the two are universes apart when it comes to the apps that consume them. Therefore, for pure marketing and attention reasons, we decided that coming up with less of a mouthful With all due respect, the idea that semantic HTML is a mouthful is downright patronizing, for those who already know of it, as well as for those whom we're trying to reach. suggesting that people merely use semantic HTML is a bit misleading and open-ended, in that HTML itself has a poor vocabulary of semantic objects But POSH /is/ semantic HTML, and is therefore open-ended, with a poor vocabulary of semantic objects. Stating that one should use POSH won't change any of that. If anything, throwing a new acronym into the mix, in my opinion, will only confuse people and fragment any ground the semantic markup movement has already made. That's because, not everyone who sees a new acronym will read up on it (as we're already swimming in a sea of them). POSH is the perfect anecdote to what I might call semantic malaise, where web developers and designers would love to go semantic, but apart from moving away from presentational elements and using tables for layouts, there hasn't been much beyond that that offers a way to level up, whereas with microformats, there's a clear process (think of hCard as being a level-80 microformat, etc). The very fact that web developers and designers have begun to move away from using presentational elements and tables for layout is due to the focused effort of people in the community targeting these particular issues. What's to keep the community from targeting the semantics of HTML? I don't think a new acronym is going to help do it (like I said before I think it's just going to cause confusion). If anything, it's just a question of more hard work on the part of the community to get the word out that there are semantics involved in creating markup, and that there are major benefits to using them. The key is in teaching designers/developers on how to take advantages of semantic markup. recent years and with the onslaught of closed web technologies like SilverLight, Apollo and JavaFX picking up steam, what's there to lose at this point? This is exactly where the confusion will emerge. Developers and designers will be under the impression that POSH is some sort of wizz-bang technology when it is just a rebranding of something that's been around since the stone age. What we'll lose is ground. A. -- Ara Pehlivanian Site: http://arapehlivanian.com/ Email GTalk: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Twitter: http://twitter.com/ara_p/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/1/248/b84 Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=704015025 ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
On 5/6/07, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frances Berriman wrote: This is kind of why I have a problem with the POSH thing. Also, from a marketing perspective, I'd posit that plain and old are probably not the best terms to sex up and sell the idea. Except that that's the precise goal that we're trying to achieve...! We don't want *new* formats... we want to get folks in the habit and mindset of using HTML the way it was meant to be used. As for using existing resources like SimpleQuiz, I went through the collection of quizzes and some of those answers are already out of date! I think what we need to do is redouble our efforts -- to go back with all the knowledge and wisdom we've gained in the developments of microformats and start thinking about how these basic formats fit into the larger body of -- I won't use the acronym -- *meaningful markup* (borrowed from Molly.com). Now, if you want to call it something else, as Jeremy said, go for it. I'm not wedded to the acronym, but I also don't want to waste my time sitting around trying to come up with a committee-approved term that helps the pill of semantic markup go down a little more easily. To quote Todd Sieling of Ma.gnolia: Let's focus on outcomes and not outputs -- let's not get bogged down with the term when clearly our work on spreading semantic best practices has just begun: http://www.sean-johnson.com/2007/05/06/web-standards-still-have-a-long-way-to-go/ Now, I want to make one final point. If it were possible, I'd say that we could go ahead and just stick with the HTML acronym -- plenty of people still don't know what that means and we could obviously benefit from its widespread use. The problem with that approach however, as with a term like microformats -- is that there were already certain guidelines and principles established that weren't followed originally. You look at the HTML spec and nowhere does it talk about using blockquote for indenting your text or using tables for layout. Similarly, in the microformats-creation process, there's an *explicit* prohibition on creating new microformats... and yet, that's been by and large where people have wanted to contribute most often. I would suggest that we move beyond just the term POSH -- which itself is arguably lacking -- and starting talking about POSH Patterns (and POSH formats ... i.e. microformats). I think the addition of patterns helps hone in on what we're talking about and helps move directly into answering the question what is a POSH Pattern? rather than simply answering What is POSH and why is it called that? Chris -- Chris Messina Citizen Provocateur Open Source Ambassador-at-Large Work: http://citizenagency.com Blog: http://factoryjoe.com/blog Cell: 412 225-1051 Skype: factoryjoe This email is: [X] bloggable[ ] ask first [ ] private ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
Hello, If you really have to make up a new name... then how about... SHTML. (Short for Semantic HTML.) (It's similar in vein to XHTML.) SHTML is... Simple, to the point, and sexy :-) See ya On 5/6/07, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frances Berriman wrote: This is kind of why I have a problem with the POSH thing. Yeah, it's meant to be a bit of a joke (and plenty of people are laughing) - but for those people that would actually benefit from improving their knowledge of HTML and semantics - seeing another acronym with unknown origins thrown around isn't necessarily going to make them learn any more! Also, from a marketing perspective, I'd posit that plain and old are probably not the best terms to sex up and sell the idea. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/ ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
Hello, On 5/6/07, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, If you really have to make up a new name... then how about... SHTML. (Short for Semantic HTML.) (It's similar in vein to XHTML.) Sorry... I meant DHTML here. See ya SHTML is... Simple, to the point, and sexy :-) See ya On 5/6/07, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frances Berriman wrote: This is kind of why I have a problem with the POSH thing. Yeah, it's meant to be a bit of a joke (and plenty of people are laughing) - but for those people that would actually benefit from improving their knowledge of HTML and semantics - seeing another acronym with unknown origins thrown around isn't necessarily going to make them learn any more! Also, from a marketing perspective, I'd posit that plain and old are probably not the best terms to sex up and sell the idea. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/ -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/ ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
If you really have to make up a new name... then how about... SHTML. (Short for Semantic HTML.) except that it is already well-known as a file extension for html containing Server Side Includes. ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
If you really have to make up a new name... then how about... SHTML. (Short for Semantic HTML.) .shtml files exist. We don't need a new name for semantically valuable HTML, we need good tutorials explaining them. The only good HTML resource I can name when people ask me is Patrick's HTML Dog. Microformats are built upon standards that are already in use. With my cynic hat on I could say this rules out POSH or any other name we come up with for clean, semantically meaningful markup. ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
On 07/05/07, Christian Heilmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you really have to make up a new name... then how about... SHTML. (Short for Semantic HTML.) .shtml files exist. We don't need a new name for semantically valuable HTML, we need good tutorials explaining them. The only good HTML resource I can name when people ask me is Patrick's HTML Dog. I completely concur. I do not understand why HTML needs rebranding at all! My stand-point is similar. HTML Dog is a brilliant resource, and I suspect we should be thinking about developing resources like this to prime for microformats. POSH isn't going to do that, in my mind. -- Frances Berriman http://fberriman.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
On 5/7/07, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, If you really have to make up a new name... then how about... SHTML. (Short for Semantic HTML.) (It's similar in vein to XHTML.) SHTML is... Simple, to the point, and sexy :-) I agree, except that it can easily be confused with the .shtml extension which is used for HTML documents with Server Side Includes enabled. (Not that I'm sold on the idea of POSH.) A. -- Ara Pehlivanian Site: http://arapehlivanian.com/ Email GTalk: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Twitter: http://twitter.com/ara_p/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/1/248/b84 Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=704015025 ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
On 07/05/07, Ara Pehlivanian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/7/07, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, If you really have to make up a new name... then how about... SHTML. (Short for Semantic HTML.) (It's similar in vein to XHTML.) SHTML is... Simple, to the point, and sexy :-) Not sexy. HTML should be semantic all the time. There shouldn't be another category of HTML that is, and one that isn't. ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
HTML should be semantic all the time. There shouldn't be another category of HTML that is, and one that isn't. Ideally perhaps, but as we all know (and this is the reason this discussion is taking place), most HTML on the web contains significant amounts of presentational markup. Presentational elements are still in the html 4 spec. Many tools produce presentational html. So if you just have tutorials on 'HTML' almost all your target audience will think I already know html, and skip it. But if you talk about Semantic HTML, novices may be curious, and the more expert will probably still be interested. I'm of the opinion that Semantic HTML is a perfectly fine term for Semantic HTML, and I'm a little sceptical of the utility of a new acronym for it. If there's a problem with people still not understanding semantic html, either the arguments for it aren't being made clear enough and loud enough, or maybe the arguments simply don't chime with html authors ' perceptions of what they are doing. ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
On 07/05/07, Keith Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ideally perhaps, but as we all know (and this is the reason this discussion is taking place), most HTML on the web contains significant amounts of presentational markup. Presentational elements are still in the html 4 spec. Many tools produce presentational html. So if you just have tutorials on 'HTML' almost all your target audience will think I already know html, and skip it. But if you talk about Semantic HTML, novices may be curious, and the more expert will probably still be interested. Okay, yeah, that's fair. I think there should be an emphasis on teaching good semantic practices - which is ultimately what we all want - it's just how we go about that that differs in opinion. :) I'm of the opinion that Semantic HTML is a perfectly fine term for Semantic HTML, and I'm a little sceptical of the utility of a new acronym for it. If there's a problem with people still not understanding semantic html, either the arguments for it aren't being made clear enough and loud enough, or maybe the arguments simply don't chime with html authors ' perceptions of what they are doing. Agreed (but lets not call it SHTML or POSH, or anything other than Semantic HTML :) ). There's no harm in drumming in the semantic part as being of great importance by explicitely stating it in that way. -- Frances Berriman http://fberriman.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
I'm of the opinion that Semantic HTML is a perfectly fine term for Semantic HTML, and I'm a little sceptical of the utility of a new acronym for it. If there's a problem with people still not understanding semantic html, either the arguments for it aren't being made clear enough and loud enough, or maybe the arguments simply don't chime with html authors ' perceptions of what they are doing. Agreed (but lets not call it SHTML or POSH, or anything other than Semantic HTML :) ). There's no harm in drumming in the semantic part as being of great importance by explicitely stating it in that way. I think that's a really good point, and I completely agree. Regarding the points not being clear or loud enough though, I'm not so sure. There are *always* going to be people who don't fully understand things, especially as they're getting to grips with them, and attempting to run (eg. microformats) before they can walk (eg. semantic HTML). We've just got to live with it (that's not to say we can't help), rather than think there's some immense crisis that needs to be (or rather *can*) be solved. Patrick ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
From: Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...which brings us back to the issue, now over a year old, that many of the pages on the 'wiki' need to be re-written in plain English. If you can furnish us with several examples perhaps gathered together on a wiki page, I'm sure that the uF army will begin to work on them. -- Paul Wilkins ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
I agree with Ben on this, and much of the other sentiment raised so far. To simplify this discussion, I think POSH is useful as a conceptual tool for reifying the definition of microformats: POSH Patterns: semantic practices resulting in meaningful markup Microformats: HTML-based data formats I believe that POSH should actually become it's own parallel effort to microformats -- and that the microformats wiki should link to external resources, documentation and best practices for all things POSH. Now, that doesn't have to happen right away, as we are still building out the foundational corpus of information related to POSH, but I think conflating microformats and POSH could end up confusing folks new to either concept -- and as such needs a logical and geographic delineation if we're to squeeze the most value out of this. To that end, I think that whatever POSH-mark we come up with shouldn't relate to the microformats mark, either in color or typeface. While the terms are siblings, the way we market them should be radically different -- as should be the audiences of either term. The audience of POSH is generally anyone who writes HTML, who works with people who write HTML, CSS and AJAX developers, bloggers, designers, hybrids, framework builders, language writers and so forth. The microformats audience is similar, but should also include standards folks, browser developers, and so on. Nor are the members of these audiences mutually exclusive, but we must maintain audience-specific priorities for each effort. Finally, as to the POSH brand, I think there's still much to be done to come up with a mark to represent the effort that is as cool or sexy as the microformats icon itself. Dan Cederholm set the bar pretty high on this one and I've already got a few designer-friends coming up with something that I think you'll like, playing on the idea of semantic salt... So, it's something of a matter of time before we find a proper home for POSH, but agree that long-term, the goal should be to separate out the two efforts as distinct community efforts. Chris On 5/5/07, David Mead [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to agree, and have cast my vote, that the use of the microformats logo with POSH isn't a good idea straight out of the gate. I do like Jon's badges so if I were to ever use one I'd be happy with one of those. Maybe I'm missing something but if you want to promote plain old semantic HTML then wouldn't you have that first and then add microformats to it? So the POSH badge should be designed first and then an alternative to show you are using POSH with uF's. Didn't the W3C have badges (I'm going back a bit now) for HTML, one for CSS and one combined? Maybe this is the way to go. Get the foundation (POSH), add CSS, uF's, RSS what-have-you afterwards. I'm not a big one for badges anyway :-) Dave On 5/5/07, Jon Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Ward wrote: Now the whole point of this is to differentiate semantic HTML from microformats, discourage the further ambiguation of the terms. So to be honest I'm a bit put out by the badges that have been added to http://microformats.org/wiki/posh#POSH_Bling_for_your_Blog which include the microformats logo. I've provided a plain HTML / CSS alternative without the microformats logo: http://jontangerine.com/silo/microformats/posh-badge/ Please feel free to use / adapt as you like. All the best, Jon Tan ___ 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 -- Chris Messina Citizen Provocateur Open Source Ambassador-at-Large Work: http://citizenagency.com Blog: http://factoryjoe.com/blog Cell: 412 225-1051 Skype: factoryjoe This email is: [ ] bloggable[X] ask first [ ] private ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
The fact that I think POSH is a ridiculous, unnecessary, and patronising initiative aside, these sentiments are spot-on. Semantic HTML comes first, microformats after. For POSH to catch on, it needs to appeal to web development (or certainly web standards) newcomers. Microformats is an advanced concept - not one that most beginners are going to latch on to straight away. So I think lumping this with microformats partly defeats the point - it has the potential to confuse and seemingly complicate things, rather than clarify and simplify them. Patrick Chris Messina wrote: I agree with Ben on this, and much of the other sentiment raised so far. To simplify this discussion, I think POSH is useful as a conceptual tool for reifying the definition of microformats: POSH Patterns: semantic practices resulting in meaningful markup Microformats: HTML-based data formats I believe that POSH should actually become it's own parallel effort to microformats -- and that the microformats wiki should link to external resources, documentation and best practices for all things POSH. Now, that doesn't have to happen right away, as we are still building out the foundational corpus of information related to POSH, but I think conflating microformats and POSH could end up confusing folks new to either concept -- and as such needs a logical and geographic delineation if we're to squeeze the most value out of this. To that end, I think that whatever POSH-mark we come up with shouldn't relate to the microformats mark, either in color or typeface. While the terms are siblings, the way we market them should be radically different -- as should be the audiences of either term. The audience of POSH is generally anyone who writes HTML, who works with people who write HTML, CSS and AJAX developers, bloggers, designers, hybrids, framework builders, language writers and so forth. The microformats audience is similar, but should also include standards folks, browser developers, and so on. Nor are the members of these audiences mutually exclusive, but we must maintain audience-specific priorities for each effort. Finally, as to the POSH brand, I think there's still much to be done to come up with a mark to represent the effort that is as cool or sexy as the microformats icon itself. Dan Cederholm set the bar pretty high on this one and I've already got a few designer-friends coming up with something that I think you'll like, playing on the idea of semantic salt... So, it's something of a matter of time before we find a proper home for POSH, but agree that long-term, the goal should be to separate out the two efforts as distinct community efforts. Chris On 5/5/07, David Mead [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to agree, and have cast my vote, that the use of the microformats logo with POSH isn't a good idea straight out of the gate. I do like Jon's badges so if I were to ever use one I'd be happy with one of those. Maybe I'm missing something but if you want to promote plain old semantic HTML then wouldn't you have that first and then add microformats to it? So the POSH badge should be designed first and then an alternative to show you are using POSH with uF's. Didn't the W3C have badges (I'm going back a bit now) for HTML, one for CSS and one combined? Maybe this is the way to go. Get the foundation (POSH), add CSS, uF's, RSS what-have-you afterwards. I'm not a big one for badges anyway :-) Dave On 5/5/07, Jon Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Ward wrote: Now the whole point of this is to differentiate semantic HTML from microformats, discourage the further ambiguation of the terms. So to be honest I'm a bit put out by the badges that have been added to http://microformats.org/wiki/posh#POSH_Bling_for_your_Blog which include the microformats logo. I've provided a plain HTML / CSS alternative without the microformats logo: http://jontangerine.com/silo/microformats/posh-badge/ Please feel free to use / adapt as you like. All the best, Jon Tan ___ 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] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
I think POSH is useful as a conceptual tool for reifying the definition of microformats: POSH Patterns: semantic practices resulting in meaningful markup Microformats: HTML-based data formats I think (at least) 3 distinctions need to be made: - 'vanilla' semantic HTML (using non-presentational html markup appropriate to the content it describes) - HTML-based data formats (actually, this is what I was looking for a term for when I suggested 'POSH') - Microformats (HTML data formats that have gone through the Microformats Process - a canon of html data formats ) Keith Keith Alexander http://semwebdev.keithalexander.co.uk/blog/ ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
Chris Messina wrote: I believe that POSH should actually become it's own parallel effort to microformats -- and that the microformats wiki should link to external resources, documentation and best practices for all things POSH. Now, that doesn't have to happen right away, as we are still building out the foundational corpus of information related to POSH, but I think conflating microformats and POSH could end up confusing folks new to either concept -- and as such needs a logical and geographic delineation if we're to squeeze the most value out of this. I agree completely. While I think it's okay for the microformats wiki page to act as a stop-gap descriptive page explaining how POSH relates to microformats, it should definitely not become the canonical home of POSH. I think it would definitely be a good idea to drop the last bit of this step from the process: Encourage others to be POSH and POSHify their websites by linking to this page. Anyone mind if I go in and make that change? (Frankly, I'm not sure a process really matches the idea of POSH which is just labelling something that people are doing anyway. So while I see the value of the checklist, I think we could stand to ditch the process part) By far the best solution here would be to split POSH into a separate resource on different websites (not necessarily maintained by people in the microformats community). As Chris said, the microformats wiki page on POSH should become a link list rather than a home for POSH. Patrick Griffiths wrote: The fact that I think POSH is a ridiculous, unnecessary, and patronising initiative aside I think you might be missing a lot of the tongue-in-cheekiness of the term. Nobody thinks it's a particularly good or clever term but it's better than saying not a microformat as in when someone writes I've just created my own microformat and they are then told no, what you have created is...[insert term here] It doesn't matter what the term itself is. If you'd rather say a semantic HTML pattern, that's fine. If the term POSH dies off, that's fine. The term itself is unimportant. What's important is that people are thinking about how to create and use semantic markup patterns and (crucially) also realising that a semantic markup pattern by itself isn't a microformat. So I think lumping this with microformats partly defeats the point - it has the potential to confuse and seemingly complicate things, rather than clarify and simplify them. No argument there. But you can see how we still need somewhere to point people to when we say things like Before you start using microformats you should be using [insert term here] or What you're proposing doesn't need to be a microformat but it's a great example of [insert term here]. Personally I think http://htmldog.com/ would be a great resource to point people to when they need some tutorials and references on semantic HTML. If you wanted to set up a disambiguation page on your site (including whatever personal issues you have with using the POSH acronym if you like) it would make a great jumping-off point for people who need to brush up on their meaningful markup: people who, as you point out, are coming to microformats too soon: Semantic HTML comes first, microformats after. For POSH to catch on, it needs to appeal to web development (or certainly web standards) newcomers. Microformats is an advanced concept - not one that most beginners are going to latch on to straight away. Bye, Jeremy -- Jeremy Keith a d a c t i o http://adactio.com/ ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
Keith Alexander wrote: I think POSH is useful as a conceptual tool for reifying the definition of microformats: POSH Patterns: semantic practices resulting in meaningful markup Microformats: HTML-based data formats I think (at least) 3 distinctions need to be made: - 'vanilla' semantic HTML (using non-presentational html markup appropriate to the content it describes) - HTML-based data formats (actually, this is what I was looking for a term for when I suggested 'POSH') - Microformats (HTML data formats that have gone through the Microformats Process - a canon of html data formats ) Relating this discussion to real world problems we're trying to solve for a second, there may be a wider context: In Nov, 2005 I was trying to search for office space in Bristol, UK and getting garbage from search results. The problem was the legacy gap left between non semantic markup, bad labeling and machines. The gap had been filled with noise from pseudo-aggregation sites, paid directories and other Web marketing services -- a problem faced by anyone trying to use Web searches to extract up to date, usable aggregated data from poorly marked-up Web sites. That problem still persists. At the time, my experience threw up some thoughts (and a rather verbose article[1]) on semantics and specifically what I called semantic information design ethics, shortened to SIDE for brevity. I see POSH and microformats as unique but connected components of a solution to free data from Web pages and allow it to be aggregated, discovered and reused. If POSH is concerned with HTML-based data formats, or if semantic markup initiatives generally would seek to contribute to a solution for this current and real world problem then a further requirement has to be meaningful use of language in the document. I.e. Not only appropriate markup, but meaningful text itself to allows machines to recognise the page has a place in a matrix of aggregated data for a given search term. (This also applies to gateway pages on sites to proprietary datasets.) FWIW, I still talk to businesses and individuals who's legacy sites don't even have descriptive page titles or n'er a h tag in sight. In ignorance they are considering buying some SEO or Web marketing activity to compensate. It may seem a little simplistic from the lofty heights of semantic enlightenment, but there are a huge number of less-enlightened colleagues and their clients who would benefit from an initiative in this area -- not to mention the browsing public. A simple checklist of changes (including POSH) that they could make today to their markup, use of language etc could have significant benefits for everyone and make inroads to solving this real world problem. Being cynical, the bottom-line benefits for are obvious should be motivation enough for 90% of sites. More fundamental uF, IA, UI and accessibility checkpoints could also be included that they could work towards. At the moment, without including the wider context for POSH or specifying real-world benefits for implementers POSH seems on the road to just another geeky acronym that's (almost) cool for those in the know. Outreach is critical and, features, benefits /and/ incentives need to be specified to do that. Apologies for the lengthy reply. Thanks, Jon Tan [1] http://gr0w.com/articles/design/an_extra_side_to_web_standards_based_design/ ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
Jeremy Keith wrote: I think you might be missing a lot of the tongue-in-cheekiness of the term. Nobody thinks it's a particularly good or clever term but it's better than saying not a microformat as in when someone writes I've just created my own microformat and they are then told no, what you have created is...[insert term here] Yep - it's quite possible I missed the extent of the tongue-in-cheekiness of it! It might be assumed that others will, too... It doesn't matter what the term itself is. If you'd rather say a semantic HTML pattern, that's fine. If the term POSH dies off, that's fine. The term itself is unimportant. What's important is that people are thinking about how to create and use semantic markup patterns and (crucially) also realising that a semantic markup pattern by itself isn't a microformat. So I think lumping this with microformats partly defeats the point - it has the potential to confuse and seemingly complicate things, rather than clarify and simplify them. No argument there. But you can see how we still need somewhere to point people to when we say things like Before you start using microformats you should be using [insert term here] or What you're proposing doesn't need to be a microformat but it's a great example of [insert term here]. Absolutely - I see a very important need for the microformats community to ensure basic semantic practices are understood. I'm just not convinced that POSH is the right way to go about it. Aren't there adequate resources, both technical (Simple Quiz, Bite Size Standards, HTML Dog, etc.) and evangelical (WaSP, Zeldman, loads of others), out there already to point to? It seems a bit like re-inventing the wheel, and adding yet another term to Geekworld will surely confuse things for some people. Personally I think http://htmldog.com/ would be a great resource to point people to when they need some tutorials and references on semantic HTML. If you wanted to set up a disambiguation page on your site (including whatever personal issues you have with using the POSH acronym if you like) it would make a great jumping-off point for people who need to brush up on their meaningful markup: people who, as you point out, are coming to microformats too soon: How's this in addition: A quick and friendly Are you ready for microformats? quiz, with a few semantics-related questions and helpful explanatory answers? I'd be happy to do this, and your suggestion, and help in other ways where I can. Might have to wait until mid-June though. Damned real-world work getting in the way and all that :) Patrick ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
On 06/05/07, Patrick Griffiths [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Absolutely - I see a very important need for the microformats community to ensure basic semantic practices are understood. I'm just not This is kind of why I have a problem with the POSH thing. Yeah, it's meant to be a bit of a joke (and plenty of people are laughing) - but for those people that would actually benefit from improving their knowledge of HTML and semantics - seeing another acronym with unknown origins thrown around isn't necessarily going to make them learn any more! From experience, an unknown buzzwordy acronym tends to have more of the effect of scaring off people or confusing them, or worse that the concept it's describing is just another fad! I mean, microformats alone seems like a pretty scary term in the first place (which I think is one of the reasons a lot of newcomers think microformats must be a difficult and highly complex technology). C'mon - our founding principle is meant to be to use the lowest barrier to entry! Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying we should scrap the name microformats too, but I do think we should be making learning about them, and semantic practices, as simple and straight-forward as possible with minimal use of too many technical terms and random acronyms. *apologies if I'm starting to a little off-topic. :) -- Frances Berriman http://fberriman.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
Frances Berriman wrote: This is kind of why I have a problem with the POSH thing. Yeah, it's meant to be a bit of a joke (and plenty of people are laughing) - but for those people that would actually benefit from improving their knowledge of HTML and semantics - seeing another acronym with unknown origins thrown around isn't necessarily going to make them learn any more! Also, from a marketing perspective, I'd posit that plain and old are probably not the best terms to sex up and sell the idea. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
Ben Ward wrote: Now the whole point of this is to differentiate semantic HTML from microformats, discourage the further ambiguation of the terms. So to be honest I'm a bit put out by the badges that have been added to http://microformats.org/wiki/posh#POSH_Bling_for_your_Blog which include the microformats logo. I've provided a plain HTML / CSS alternative without the microformats logo: http://jontangerine.com/silo/microformats/posh-badge/ Please feel free to use / adapt as you like. All the best, Jon Tan ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
I have to agree, and have cast my vote, that the use of the microformats logo with POSH isn't a good idea straight out of the gate. I do like Jon's badges so if I were to ever use one I'd be happy with one of those. Maybe I'm missing something but if you want to promote plain old semantic HTML then wouldn't you have that first and then add microformats to it? So the POSH badge should be designed first and then an alternative to show you are using POSH with uF's. Didn't the W3C have badges (I'm going back a bit now) for HTML, one for CSS and one combined? Maybe this is the way to go. Get the foundation (POSH), add CSS, uF's, RSS what-have-you afterwards. I'm not a big one for badges anyway :-) Dave On 5/5/07, Jon Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Ward wrote: Now the whole point of this is to differentiate semantic HTML from microformats, discourage the further ambiguation of the terms. So to be honest I'm a bit put out by the badges that have been added to http://microformats.org/wiki/posh#POSH_Bling_for_your_Blog which include the microformats logo. I've provided a plain HTML / CSS alternative without the microformats logo: http://jontangerine.com/silo/microformats/posh-badge/ Please feel free to use / adapt as you like. All the best, Jon Tan ___ 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] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
On 03/05/07, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it is intended to be separate form microformats, then having so much about it on the microformat 'wiki' is somewhat misleading. I must admit that I have some qualms about having it on the microformats wiki also - if it's a term designed to disambiguate, it's highly confusing for it to stem from microformats (even if though they are POSH) and probably a bit counter-intuitive! -- Frances Berriman http://fberriman.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
Right, I've set up a vote for this on the Wiki. As explained in my Wiki commit comment, with the POSH page being something of a reference rather than a page of active microformat development, I judge it to be inappropriate to tack the vote on to the article itself and have created a Talk: page for the vote instead. If interested parties could please contribute and offer any objections by Wednesday evening (allowing the UK bank holiday weekend and two working days for collection). http://microformats.org/wiki/Talk:posh Cheers, Ben On 3 May 2007, at 13:06, Serdar Kiliç wrote: I agree, there shouldn't be an association with the Microformats logo with that of any POSH logo. As you say, it's important to be able to distinguish the two, which I believe is accomplished with the information found on the wiki page. ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
[uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
Hi all, I've obviously been following the recent push to have POSH adopted as a buzzword to discourage people from mis-using the term ‘microformat’ in their semantic endeavours. Now the whole point of this is to differentiate semantic HTML from microformats, discourage the further ambiguation of the terms. So to be honest I'm a bit put out by the badges that have been added to http://microformats.org/wiki/posh#POSH_Bling_for_your_Blog which include the microformats logo. As part of our ‘community mark’ experiment I'd like to object to that usage of the microformats logo and ask those badges be removed. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the term, POSH is explicitly supposed to be a super-set of microformats, a generic term invented to help protect the microformats name from being generalised. If the first thing people do — on our own wiki, no less — is tack the microformats logo to it then it will do absolutely nothing toward that goal, and with all the current hype will only accelerate the loss of ‘microformat’ as a name for the Process. POSH is not a microformat. The documented presence on our wiki is acceptable as ‘microformat’ mis-use is a common problem for us, but I object to it being presented as part of ‘microformats’ through association with the logo. It's just going to cause more confusion. Cheers, Ben ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
On 03/05/2007, at 7:02 PM, Ben Ward wrote: As part of our ‘community mark’ experiment I'd like to object to that usage of the microformats logo and ask those badges be removed. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the term, POSH is explicitly supposed to be a super-set of microformats, a generic term invented to help protect the microformats name from being generalised. If the first thing people do — on our own wiki, no less — is tack the microformats logo to it then it will do absolutely nothing toward that goal, and with all the current hype will only accelerate the loss of ‘microformat’ as a name for the Process. POSH is not a microformat. The documented presence on our wiki is acceptable as ‘microformat’ mis-use is a common problem for us, but I object to it being presented as part of ‘microformats’ through association with the logo. It's just going to cause more confusion. Cheers, Ben I agree, there shouldn't be an association with the Microformats logo with that of any POSH logo. As you say, it's important to be able to distinguish the two, which I believe is accomplished with the information found on the wiki page. Cheers, Serdar ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ben Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I've obviously been following the recent push to have POSH adopted as a buzzword to discourage people from mis-using the term ‘microformat’ in their semantic endeavours. Now the whole point of this is to differentiate semantic HTML from microformats, discourage the further ambiguation of the terms. Is it? I've never seen that said before. If it is intended to be separate form microformats, then having so much about it on the microformat 'wiki' is somewhat misleading. POSH is explicitly supposed to be a super-set of microformats, a generic term invented to help protect the microformats name from being generalised. I think it's quite clear from the cited history that that's not why the term was coined; it certainly not why I added it to the glossary. POSH is not a microformat. Agreed, but microformats *are* POSH. The documented presence on our wiki is acceptable as ‘microformat’ mis-use is a common problem for us, The later claim does not justify the former assertion. but I object to it being presented as part of ‘microformats’ through association with the logo. It's just going to cause more confusion. I also agree with your later point; but I think the same applies to having POSH as part of the microformat 'wiki'. -- Andy Mabbett * Say NO! to compulsory ID Cards: http://www.no2id.net/ * Free Our Data: http://www.freeourdata.org.uk * Are you using Microformats, yet: http://microformats.org/ ? ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
