Hello,
If the term Microformat does become a synonym for Semantic HTML
(with most people outside this group... and yeah, I've noticed to that
it looks like it already has)... I suppose we could start using the
terminology...
Official Microformat and Unofficial Microformat
Or something like
Hi Andy,
On Apr 28, 2007, at 12:57 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
I can't prevent people from calling cats dogs either, but I'm
certainly going to say something when it happens.
This isn't case of people calling cats dogs; it's closer to the
dispute over whether a Jack Russell Terrier is a breed
On Apr 27, 2007, at 9:54 AM, Keith Grennan wrote:
I agree. I really hope microformat won't turn into just another
term for semantic HTML. Clear communication is difficult enough
already without additional ambiguity.
I think it already has.
Of the mentions of microformats I see outside
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott
Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I can't prevent people from calling cats dogs either, but I'm
certainly going to say something when it happens.
This isn't case of people calling cats dogs; it's closer to the
dispute over whether a Jack Russell Terrier is a
On 4/26/07, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's a point-of view, but not a definitive fact. Who says it's not a
microformat? With what authority?
Microformats are the things that are following the process on microformats.org.
The authority presumably comes from whoever made up the
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 07:40:01PM -0500, Scott Reynen wrote:
On Apr 26, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
I realize you may not like that distinction, and we may or may not
have any ability to enforce that, but I think it is only reasonable
for us to attempt to enforce
Keith Grennan wrote:
I agree. I really hope microformat won't turn into just another
term for semantic HTML. Clear communication is difficult enough
already without additional ambiguity.
I think it already has.
It's like Adobe trying to control how people use the word 'photoshop'.
It
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dr. Ernie
Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
That's a point-of view, but not a definitive fact. Who says it's
not a microformat? With what authority?
Um, is there any authority you *would* accept for that usage?
It doesn't matter what I do, or would, accept; it's
Hi Andy,
On Apr 27, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dr. Ernie
Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
That's a point-of view, but not a definitive fact. Who says it's
not a microformat? With what authority?
Um, is there any authority you *would* accept for
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dr. Ernie
Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Apr 27, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dr. Ernie
Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
That's a point-of view, but not a definitive fact. Who says it's
not a microformat? With
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeremy
Keith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Keith Grennan wrote:
Supported formats:
* hGrant
hGrant is not a microformat. hGrant *is* reusable semantic markup
(POSH by another name).
That's a point-of view, but not a definitive fact. Who says it's not a
microformat?
11 matches
Mail list logo
