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 wo
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 ima
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 argument
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
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 enoug
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 produ
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. Presentatio
On 5/7/07, Frances Berriman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
HTML should be semantic all the time. There shouldn't be another
category of HTML that is, and one that isn't.
I agree. If there's any category it should be PoSH for "Piece of S**t
HTML", for the markup that isn't semantic. :-)
A.
--
Ara
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
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 confus
In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Frances
Berriman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>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
...which brings us back to the iss
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 HTM
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.
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
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 :
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
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 t
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 un
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
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, w
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
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
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-presentationa
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 advance
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
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"
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
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:
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 t
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 semant
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 gen
31 matches
Mail list logo
