On 4/21/06 7:18 PM, Luke Arno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark P. is on the right track here as usual, I think.
Yes.
What has been glossed over in this convo is that
underlying the discomfort that has been expressed
on the validation front here is this:
Sure you can validate a microformat
On 4/22/06, Tantek Çelik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact, DTD, Schema, etc. are insufficient to validate any real world
adopted format, whether SGML, XML or something else.
That's too strong.
If you say DTD and XML Schema are both rather limited WRT to
validating XML, fine, but with RELAX NG
On 4/22/06, Tantek Çelik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/21/06 7:18 PM, Luke Arno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark P. is on the right track here as usual, I think.
Yes.
What has been glossed over in this convo is that
underlying the discomfort that has been expressed
on the validation
On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 23:38 +0100, Nick Swan wrote:
I'm working on a tool for discovering and validating microformats.
...
I could really do with a flow diagram or something like that of how to
parse/validate microformats.
...
On 4/20/06, Breton Slivka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
norman
See dev list:
http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-dev/2006-April/82.html
http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-dev/2006-April/83.html
-brian
Benjamin Carlyle wrote:
On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 23:38 +0100, Nick Swan wrote:
I'm working on a tool for discovering
On 4/21/06, Benjamin Carlyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://norman.walsh.name/2006/04/13/validatingMicroformats
Microformat validation seems like a hard problem to me, or at least a
It's only a hard problem if you insist on using inappropriate
technology to solve it. Norm is a smart
On Apr 21, 2006, at 12:20 PM, Mark Pilgrim wrote:1) Microformats permit any underlying html structure to be used, so there is nothing to validate there that the w3c validator doesn't already do. Wrong. See http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-dev/2006-April/83.html I don't see
On Apr 21, 2006, at 12:20 PM, Mark Pilgrim wrote:2) Microformats allow arbitrary extension though the use of custom html classes provided by the document author. Unknown classes are still valid, so they can't be declared as errors. 3) The only validation that is possible is to ensure all data that
That's excellent Mark.
I have a small additional suggestion for 'validator' feedback, that
concerning common errors in naming conventions: Such as the use of a
'middle-name' classname when 'additional-names' was intended. Also
'locality', 'region', 'postal-code', 'country-name' can be misentered
On 4/21/06, Ben Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a small additional suggestion for 'validator' feedback, that
concerning common errors in naming conventions: Such as the use of a
'middle-name' classname when 'additional-names' was intended. Also
'locality', 'region', 'postal-code',
Mark P. is on the right track here as usual, I think.
What has been glossed over in this convo is that
underlying the discomfort that has been expressed
on the validation front here is this:
Sure you can validate a microformat reasonably
well (though it may be difficult to validate format
Chris Messina recently wrote about how Google's new Calendar missed a trick
by not supporting MF's. Google announced today
http://code.google.com/apis/gdata/index.html that they are providing a new
syndication protocol called Gdata which is based on Atom and RSS syndication
specs but it also
Holy hell. This is rediculous. Gdata == the Word document format of web 2.0.
Does anyone know *anyone* in Google that will tell us why they're
ignoring microformats??
Chris
On 4/20/06, Sam Sethi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Messina recently wrote about how Google's new Calendar missed a
opportunity for Microsoft if you think about it.
Steven
http://stevenR2.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris
Messina
Sent: 20 April 2006 17:18
To: Microformats Discuss
Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Google Gdata new syndication protocol!
Holy
On 4/20/06, Chris Messina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Holy hell. This is rediculous. Gdata == the Word document format of web 2.0.
Does anyone know *anyone* in Google that will tell us why they're
ignoring microformats??
What value do microformats provide in this context? They hardly seem
ideal
On 4/20/06, Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 20, 2006, at 11:34 AM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
What value do microformats provide in this context? They hardly seem
ideal for the sort of straight data transport that seems to be the
focus on the gdata stuff.
... Human-readable data
On 4/20/06, Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What value do microformats provide in this context? They hardly seem
ideal for the sort of straight data transport that seems to be the
focus on the gdata stuff.
The same value they provide everywhere else. Human-readable data is
easier
Of Ross
Singer
Sent: 20 April 2006 19:36
To: Microformats Discuss
Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Google Gdata new syndication protocol!
This seems more to be competition to A9's OpenSearch (which also uses
RSS and Atom to support queries).
The sad thing is that Microsoft has shown support for OpenSearch
Redirecting to microformats-dev...
On 4/20/06 12:25 PM, Bruce D'Arcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Call me sceptical. Dedicated XML formats (like Atom) that can be
validated with standard XML tools
Bruce, you're absolutely right about the value of validation. Definitely an
area where we have
.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ross
Singer
Sent: 20 April 2006 19:36
To: Microformats Discuss
Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Google Gdata new syndication protocol!
This seems more to be competition to A9's OpenSearch (which also
norman walsh recently posted inn his blog about this very issue
http://norman.walsh.name/2006/04/13/validatingMicroformats
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
I'm working on a tool for discovering and validating microformats. Hence thequestions I asked earlier today about Chris Messina's hCard!
I'm a c# programmer which I know isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea from the open standards community but ho hum!
I could really do with a flow diagram or
22 matches
Mail list logo
