Re: Banning for meta-discusion [was RE: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec"References"]

On Jan 3, 2007, at 8:26 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote: The big difference here (in contrast to Usenet, other lists etc.) is that this community has retained a remarkably positive and inviting tone of discussion for quite a long time, much much more so than those other forums, and those involved wi

Re: Banning for meta-discusion [was RE: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec"References"]

A small group of like-minded individuals with a common background who know each other personally is easy to organize. This was that, but it ain't no more. I'm not sure how much this applies... the group of administrators is a world wide group of volunteers. Although this hasn't always been true

Re: Banning for meta-discusion [was RE: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec"References"]

On Jan 3, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Christopher St John wrote: On 1/3/07, Tantek Çelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 1/3/07 5:07 PM, "Joe Andrieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For the record, I do object. Joe, thanks very much for your input. You are the only person (in email or IRC) who has obje

Re: [uf-discuss] Extending hCard and hCalendar vs. strict adherence to vcard and vCalendar.

On Dec 29, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Breton Slivka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes There's a few rather obvious problems with this idea that I can see. However, before I point them out, I will note that if the benefits of such a plan outweigh the prob

Re: Banning for meta-discusion [was RE: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec"References"]

On 1/3/07 7:11 PM, "Christopher St John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/3/07, Tantek Çelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 1/3/07 5:07 PM, "Joe Andrieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> For the record, I do object. >> >> Joe, thanks very much for your input. You are the only person (in ema

Re: Banning for meta-discusion [was RE: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec"References"]

On 1/3/07, Tantek Çelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 1/3/07 5:07 PM, "Joe Andrieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For the record, I do object. Joe, thanks very much for your input. You are the only person (in email or IRC) who has objected to banning Andy. I'm a little late, but for the reco

Re: Banning for meta-discusion [was RE: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec"References"]

On 1/3/07 5:07 PM, "Joe Andrieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tantek Ç elik wrote: >> Finally, note that this is yet another meta-discussion email >> that you have sent, and thus as promised, absent any >> objections from anyone else on the list (or IRC), you will >> shortly be banned from the mai

Banning for meta-discusion [was RE: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec"References"]

Tantek Ç elik wrote: > Finally, note that this is yet another meta-discussion email > that you have sent, and thus as promised, absent any > objections from anyone else on the list (or IRC), you will > shortly be banned from the mailing-list for a week. Tantek, For the record, I do object. I

Re: Scope of tags (Was: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw")

On Jan 3, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: On: By adding rel="tag" to a hyperlink, a page indicates that the destination of that hyperlink is an author-designated "tag" (or keyword/subject) for the current pag

xFolk edits from November restored (was Re: [uf-discuss] More censorship on the 'wiki')

On 1/3/07 3:45 PM, "Andy Mabbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tosh. You have only just revered my edit of 19 November: > > > > and no-one in the community has raised any issue with that in the > intervening period. Apolog

Re: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec "References"

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tantek Çelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> Though, bizarrely, Tantek has reverted that. > ^ >Please refrain from making ad-hominem attacks on the mailing list. You appear not to know what "ad hominem means". > I made an editor judgment call [...]

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="tag"

On Jan 3, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Nick Peters wrote: Seeing the tag implementation on Operator has made me question the existing tagging standard. With wordpress you may get something like "?cat=13" for a tag or something that may not even be the intended tag at all. Yes, Wordpress abuses the rel="

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Jonkman quoted PJ Doland: >If people have to categorize HOW something might be considered NSFW >(nudity, language, violence, nudity & language, etc.) it's going to >make them less likely to use the standard in practice. That's supposition, presented as fact. >

Re: Re: [uf-discuss] Conference Schedule Creator

Thanks Brian and Stephanie for your feedback. I've fixed two issues Brian was pointing to. Initially I added a little restriction to time range, because if you put two events (9:00–10:00) and (9:30–9:55) I don't really know which one should go first. But you are right, I will left it to user to de

Re: [uf-discuss] 'wiki' management, uF style

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tantek Çelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >On 1/3/07 3:38 PM, "Andy Mabbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tantek Çelik >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >>>Tantek is an editor of the spec (hCard) as noted, Andy is not. >> >> Editor: one

Re: [uf-discuss] Splitting the FAQ?

I don't recommend splitting it. I'm not sure what "too long" means. My guess is that if you do make such a change, it'll be reverted. Ben On 1/3/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Frances Berriman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> >I read your email. I do

Re: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec "References"

On 1/3/07 3:35 PM, "Andy Mabbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andy Mabbett > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >> two informative references: > [...] >> so I have now removed them: > > Apologies; the correct edit was: > >

Re: [uf-discuss] Splitting the FAQ?

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Frances Berriman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> >I read your email. I don't see your concerns outlined. >> >> Then I suggest that you did not read it well. >> >> Try reading the first sentence again. >> > >"getting too long"? Yes. -- Andy Mabbett * S

Re: [uf-discuss] Splitting the FAQ?

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tantek Çelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >>> I don't see any reason for splitting this. What is the problem and >>> why does it need to be split? How would splitting solve that problem? >>> It looks great to me as-is. >> >> 1) please don't top post, per >>

Re: [uf-discuss] 'wiki' management, uF style

On 1/3/07 3:38 PM, "Andy Mabbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tantek Çelik > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > > >>> Will Tantek now be banning himself? >> >> No, because Tantek is an editor of the spec (hCard) as noted, Andy is not. > > Editor: one ho edits (and, o

Re: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec "References"

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tantek Çelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Your passive-aggressive re-editing of the wiki and undoing editor edits >repeatedly (twice or more) is grounds fore being banned. You appear not to know what "passive aggressive" behaviour is. > You have already been banne

Re: [uf-discuss] 'wiki' management, uF style

Hi Andy, On Jan 3, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: I recommend you voluntarily refrain from emailing microformats lists for 24 hours at this point. One more meta-discussion email from you after you have been asked to stop will be grounds for banning from the lists. "Voluntary refrai

Re: [uf-discuss] More censorship on the 'wiki'

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tantek Çelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >On 1/3/07 3:02 PM, "Andy Mabbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In message >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Benjamin >> West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> >>> Off topic rants don't belong on the wiki. It's not helpful. >> >> I agre

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="tag"

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nick Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >When I see a tag >and click on it, I expect the visible content, not what's appended to >the end of a URL. Anyone care to shed some light on this for me? Yes, it's a potential minefield: http://exmaple.com/kid-safe>

Re: [uf-discuss] 'wiki' management, uF style

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tantek Çelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> >> do not undo editor edits, especially twice or more times, as > >Andy, RTFC: ^^ I have no idea what "RTFC", though if the first three letters mean the same as in RTFM, kindly moderate your language,

Re: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec "References"

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > two informative references: [...] >so I have now removed them: Apologies; the correct edit was: Though, bizarrely, Tantek has reverted that. So, it see

Re: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec "References"

On 1/3/07 3:20 PM, "Andy Mabbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Some time ago, I added two informative references: > > > > > > to the hCard main page: > >

[uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec "References"

Some time ago, I added two informative references: to the hCard main page: Tantek has made clear recently, after I added a third:

Re: [uf-discuss] Splitting the FAQ?

On 03/01/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Frances Berriman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >On 03/01/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 2) The answer to your first two, tautological, questions (and by >> implication your last) is contained in m

Re: [uf-discuss] 'wiki' management, uF style

On 1/3/07 3:08 PM, "Andy Mabbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Do as I say: > > > > do not undo editor edits, especially twice or more times, as Andy, RTFC: ^^ > that is grounds for being banned > >

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="tag"

On 03/01/07, Nick Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Seeing the tag implementation on Operator has made me question the existing tagging standard. With wordpress you may get something like "?cat=13" for a tag or something that may not even be the intended tag at all. After doing some research on

Re: [uf-discuss] More censorship on the 'wiki'

On 1/3/07 3:02 PM, "Andy Mabbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Benjamin > West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >> Off topic rants don't belong on the wiki. It's not helpful. > > I agree, but since my comments were neither off-topic nor ranting, > that's a straw ma

Re: [uf-discuss] Splitting the FAQ?

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Frances Berriman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >On 03/01/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 2) The answer to your first two, tautological, questions (and by >> implication your last) is contained in my post, Please (re)read it. > >I read your email. I do

[uf-discuss] rel="tag"

Seeing the tag implementation on Operator has made me question the existing tagging standard. With wordpress you may get something like "?cat=13" for a tag or something that may not even be the intended tag at all. After doing some research on the wiki I see that the rel="tag" microformat is bas

Re: [uf-discuss] More censorship on the 'wiki'

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Benjamin West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes Please don't top post, per >Off topic rants don't belong on the wiki. It's not helpful. I agree, but since my comments were neither off-topic nor ranting, that's a straw ma

[uf-discuss] 'wiki' management, uF style

Do as I say: do not undo editor edits, especially twice or more times, as that is grounds for being banned not as I do: 1. 2.

Re: [uf-discuss] Splitting the FAQ?

On 1/3/07 2:53 PM, "Andy Mabbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Benjamin > West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >> I don't see any reason for splitting this. What is the problem and >> why does it need to be split? How would splitting solve that problem? >> It look

Re: [uf-discuss] Splitting the FAQ?

On 03/01/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 2) The answer to your first two, tautological, questions (and by implication your last) is contained in my post, Please (re)read it. I read your email. I don't see your concerns outlined. I have no problems with how the FAQ currently is.

Re: [uf-discuss] Splitting the FAQ?

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Benjamin West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >I don't see any reason for splitting this. What is the problem and >why does it need to be split? How would splitting solve that problem? >It looks great to me as-is. 1) please don't top post, per

Re: [uf-discuss] More censorship on the 'wiki'

Off topic rants don't belong on the wiki. It's not helpful. Furthermore, questions without answers don't belong on -faq pages. An unresolved question is called an issue, and belongs on the -issues pages. Ben On 1/3/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Folks might like to know that dis

[uf-discuss] More censorship on the 'wiki'

Folks might like to know that dissenting opinion is still being censored from the 'wiki': -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data:

Re: [uf-discuss] Splitting the FAQ?

I don't see any reason for splitting this. What is the problem and why does it need to be split? How would splitting solve that problem? It looks great to me as-is. Ben On 1/3/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The FAQ is getting long. I propose sp

[uf-discuss] Splitting the FAQ?

The FAQ is getting long. I propose splitting it into two or more parts. Would that be OK with everyone? How should it be done? It might break some links :-( -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards:

Re: Scope of tags (Was: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw")

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian Suda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> Suppose Sue publishes a family tree as a series of web pages, one for >> each person. >> >> On her own page, she has: > >> http://example.com/sue.html >> Title: Sue Smith >> >> Jane

Re: [uf-discuss] tagging in hCalendar & hCard

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian Suda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >On 1/1/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The 'wiki' page on xFolk: >> >> >> >> says: >> >> "If you need to define tags as part of a more specialised >> f

[uf-discuss] Michael MD's wrong time (was: Conference Schedule Creator)

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael MD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 13:12:27 -0800 I think you need to fix that! -- Andy Mabbett Merry Bloomin' Christmas! ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microfor

Re: [uf-discuss] Conference Schedule Creator

On 1/3/07 4:52 AM, "Brian Suda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Otherwise this is a great little tool. I did notice that you can´t > create an event that blocks 1 hour (say 6-7) then create an event that > runs from 6:30 to 7:30. Possibly related: I created a couple of all-day events (9:00-17:00) and

[uf-discuss] The Wisdom of Microformats

Hi Folks, In his book, The Wisdom of Crowds, James Suroweicki says that to effectively harness the collective intelligence of a crowd - such as the Web - there needs to be the right balance between: - making individual knowledge globally and collectively useful - allowing individual k

Re: [uf-discuss] Conference Schedule Creator

On 1/3/07, Dmitry Baranovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Link: http://dmitry.baranovskiy.com/work/csc/ --- very cool! i´ll play around with this and see if i can break it, at first pass everything works great! two quick suggestions: 1) put all 24 hours in the time drop-down, right now it only

Re: Scope of tags (Was: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw")

On 1/1/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes Suppose Sue publishes a family tree as a series of web pages, one for each person. On her own page, she has: http://example.com/sue.html Title: Sue Smith

Re: [uf-discuss] tagging in hCalendar & hCard

On 1/1/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The 'wiki' page on xFolk: says: "If you need to define tags as part of a more specialised format, rel="tag" is the recommended way to do so, and xFolk, hReview, hCard and hCa

Re: [uf-discuss] I have filled in the hCalendar profile page; please check for accuracy

On 1/1/07, Costello, Roger L. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Folks, I have filled in the hCalendar profile page: http://microformats.org/wiki/hcalendar-profile Hopefully I have done it correctly. Please check it for accuracy. --- that is a good start, have a look at the hCard profile[1] it r