Re: [uf-discuss] hAtom - proposed move from draft to full spec

[Andy Mabbett]

In message 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian 
Suda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes



Recently, there has been alot of discuss on the IRC about implementing
hAtom in Operator. As long as there are outstanding issues and
questions about how things work, then i don't consider the spec
"complete".


Before moving to the specifications section, drop a note to
microformats-discuss and wait a day or two for major objections.
If none are forthcoming, move the microformat to the
specifications area. This move will wake up any sleeping
editors, and they may raise an objection and move you back to
draft. If you have followed the process, now is the time to pin
them down. At this juncture, any remaining issues should be easy
to resolve.

(Section quoted in full.)


i'll try and get a full list of outstanding issues available. I
believe that we need to flush out the test suite and compare several
implementations. At the moment we have atleast 2 that i am aware of
(maybe hKit too?).

I think it is a matter for the Authors of the spec to suggest moving
the spec from draft forward when they feel comfortable - maybe they
are more aware of issues than others?


That was written in April; is there any news?

--
Andy Mabbett
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] hAtom - proposed move from draft to full spec

[Scott Reynen]

On Apr 11, 2007, at 4:49 AM, Brian Suda wrote:


i'll try and get a full list of outstanding issues available. I
believe that we need to flush out the test suite and compare several
implementations. At the moment we have atleast 2 that i am aware of
(maybe hKit too?).

I think it is a matter for the Authors of the spec to suggest moving
the spec from draft forward when they feel comfortable - maybe they
are more aware of issues than others?


I think authors being more aware of issues than others is exactly why  
it shouldn't be only authors suggesting a move from draft to spec.   
Open issues should be clearly documented in the wiki where everyone  
can help resolve them.  If they're not clearly documented, the  
Authors who know about the issues aren't likely to put them in the  
wiki until the need becomes clear with someone unfamiliar saying "I  
don't see any open issues. Time to move to spec?"  It seems the  
process is working here exactly as intended, so I don't see why we  
would change it.


Peace,
Scott

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] hAtom - proposed move from draft to full spec

[Brian Suda]

On 4/10/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian
Suda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>On 4/9/07, David Janes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 4/9/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > I contend that hAtom satisfies the requirements at:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > and should be made a full specification. Any objections?
>
>--- yes, i have plenty of objections. We are currently at a version
>0.2 before we go an make any sort of VOTING process or we should make
>it much more clear how to move from a draft to spec.

I can't make any sense of that; and I don't believe that's a failure on
my part.

Do you mean that the much-vaunted process, described on the wiki, isn't
believable?

From:



Specifications

You will usually need at least one iteration to get past the
draft stage. By the time something becomes a specification, it
should be stable so that developers can pick it up and write to
it. This in turn implies that there are at least a couple of
implementations.



 sorry, i have just been sorting through a week of back emails and
didn't have time to send a lengthy explination to every single one.

Recently, there has been alot of discuss on the IRC about implementing
hAtom in Operator. As long as there are outstanding issues and
questions about how things work, then i don't consider the spec
"complete".


Before moving to the specifications section, drop a note to
microformats-discuss and wait a day or two for major objections.
If none are forthcoming, move the microformat to the
specifications area. This move will wake up any sleeping
editors, and they may raise an objection and move you back to
draft. If you have followed the process, now is the time to pin
them down. At this juncture, any remaining issues should be easy
to resolve.

(Section quoted in full.)


i'll try and get a full list of outstanding issues available. I
believe that we need to flush out the test suite and compare several
implementations. At the moment we have atleast 2 that i am aware of
(maybe hKit too?).

I think it is a matter for the Authors of the spec to suggest moving
the spec from draft forward when they feel comfortable - maybe they
are more aware of issues than others?

Since David has expressed interest in this, then it is worth pursuing.

I just want to make sure all the aspects of hAtom have been
worked-out, documented, have testable cases, and have working
implementations. Then IMHO, we can consider calling something more
than just a draft. If the community is willing to do this work, then
lets move things forward.

-brian

--
brian suda
http://suda.co.uk
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] hAtom - proposed move from draft to full spec

[Andy Mabbett]

In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian
Suda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>On 4/9/07, David Janes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 4/9/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > I contend that hAtom satisfies the requirements at:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > and should be made a full specification. Any objections?
>
>--- yes, i have plenty of objections. We are currently at a version
>0.2 before we go an make any sort of VOTING process or we should make
>it much more clear how to move from a draft to spec.

I can't make any sense of that; and I don't believe that's a failure on
my part.

Do you mean that the much-vaunted process, described on the wiki, isn't
believable?

From:



Specifications

You will usually need at least one iteration to get past the
draft stage. By the time something becomes a specification, it
should be stable so that developers can pick it up and write to
it. This in turn implies that there are at least a couple of
implementations.

Before moving to the specifications section, drop a note to
microformats-discuss and wait a day or two for major objections.
If none are forthcoming, move the microformat to the
specifications area. This move will wake up any sleeping
editors, and they may raise an objection and move you back to
draft. If you have followed the process, now is the time to pin
them down. At this juncture, any remaining issues should be easy
to resolve.

(Section quoted in full.)

>Just because some
>one says "i don't see anything wrong" doesn't mean there isn't.

Indeed. That's why I asked; as advised in "the process", quoted above.

>Instead of selecting microformats that people think should move from
>draft, we should spend that time to define what that actually MEANS.

How can several uFs already have moved from "draft" to "specification",
if we don't know what that means?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
*  Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards:  
*  Free Our Data:  
*  Are you using Microformats, yet:  ?
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] hAtom - proposed move from draft to full spec

[Brian Suda]

On 4/9/07, David Janes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 4/9/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I contend that hAtom satisfies the requirements at:
>
>
>
> and should be made a full specification. Any objections?


--- yes, i have plenty of objections. We are currently at a version
0.2 before we go an make any sort of VOTING process or we should make
it much more clear how to move from a draft to spec. Just because some
one says "i don't see anything wrong" doesn't mean there isn't.

Instead of selecting microformats that people think should move from
draft, we should spend that time to define what that actually MEANS.

-brian

--
brian suda
http://suda.co.uk
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] hAtom - proposed move from draft to full spec

[David Janes]

On 4/9/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I contend that hAtom satisfies the requirements at:

   

and should be made a full specification. Any objections?


Certainly not from me :-) It would be nice if there was a process for
actually doing this.

--
David Janes
Founder, BlogMatrix
http://www.blogmatrix.com
http://blogmatrix.blogmatrix.com
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss